Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Private Pension Schemes

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the estimated number of employees now covered by private occupational retirement pension schemes; what percentage this represents of the total number of employees; how this compares with the position 10 years ago; and what proposals he has to maintain and encourage the private provision of retirement pensions.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): It is estimated that just over 12 million employees were members of occupational pension schemes at the end of 1967; this represents about 50 per cent. of all employees. Comparable figures which are available for 1956 are, just over 8 million employees and about 35 per cent., respectively. On the last part of the Question, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Government's proposals later this winter.

Mr. Biffen: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to express his extreme satisfaction at the remarkable success story in the growth of private provision of retirement pensions and give us the assurance that private schemes will not be unfairly disadvantaged under any proposals which he might have?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I can certainly record my pleasure at the steady expansion of the schemes. Although I must ask the hon. Member to await the actual details of our scheme, I should like to wager that the scheme which we have

designed has been expressly tailored to fit in as a partnership with the private schemes and not as something to replace them.

Mr. Worsley: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that he has a reputation for being hostile to these schemes. Would he go a little further and say specifically that it is the Government's policy to encourage these schemes?

Mr. Crossman: I do not know what is "further" and what is not. What I said is that our scheme is designed to work in partnership with the private schemes. That means to encourage their growth and to provide, not a substitute, but a service which they cannot themselves provide. As for my reputation, the hon. Member may remember that I was, I think, one of the chief authors of national superannuation in 1957, in which the whole concept of contracting out was first invented.

Area Health Boards (Funds)

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is considering methods by which the proposed area health boards will be able to raise funds independent of the central Government.

Mr. Crossman: No, Sir.

Mr. Macmillan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has to find a method of getting more money into the Health Service and health generally other than by taxation? Secondly, has he any comment on the dissatisfaction which is felt at the reduced rôle which, apparently, is to be played by voluntary bodies and voluntary organisations under the Green Paper, particularly in connection with finance?

Mr. Crossman: I have just this comment to make. The Green Paper, published by my predecessor, was a Green Paper to which I am in no wise committed, as I have to repeat for the third time. As for the financing of the Health Service in general, I would have thought it true to say that there are other methods already at the disposal of the Health Service than taxation, and we can, of course, consider whether they should be improved. As for the rôle of the voluntary organisation, I would like to support


the hon. Gentleman in re-emphasising the importance of its being in no wise reduced by the existence of the Health Service.

Mr. Doughty: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that voluntary assistance to the hospitals of the Health Service has been very much hampered and impeded by the wholesale dismissal of hospital house committees? Is he aware that the Caterham and District Hospital House Committee, which had amenity funds to help the Health Service, has been summarily disbanded, in my view quite improperly? If I write with details to the right hon. Gentleman, will he look into it as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I am perfectly prepared to look into it; and if the hon. and learned Member puts down a Question I will answer it.

Mr. Pavitt: While I agree that it is wrong for the area boards to raise money in this way, will my right hon. Friend consider further the possibility of local community activities which would help in our endeavours?

Mr. Crossman: I did not say that it was either right or wrong. I said that we were not committed to the Green Paper or to the organisation therein proposed.

Retirement Pension

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the increase required in the present basic state retirement pension of £7 6s. in order to bring it up to its value in real terms at Christmas 1965.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The present pension of £7 6s. is in fact worth more in real terms than the rate in payment for a married couple at Christmas 1965.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of Sate for Social Services what proposals he has to restore the value of the basic state retirement pension for husband and dependent wife to the value in real terms at the time of the increases made in 1965.

Mr. Swingler: A further increase in National Insurance benefits, as my hon.

Friend knows, is not envisaged before the autumn of next year.

Mr. Bidwell: In welcoming that reply with great interest, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not agree that we have a duty to keep parity of value all the time? Would he not agree that the matter of a proper index weighting system for an old people's expenditure pattern is long overdue? Can my right hon. Friend say whether we are likely to get this in the near future?

Mr. Swingler: I agree thoroughly with the first proposition put forward by my hon. Friend. With regard to the second proposition, it is a matter which has been investigated many times and I am always prepared to go into it further. The Government have certainly undertaken to maintain the real values.

Lord Balniel: Is it not disturbing that, since March, 1965, prices have gone up by 15 per cent. and contributions by 20 per cent., but the pension has gone up by only 12½ per cent.? What steps are the Government taking to remedy this situation?

Mr. Swingler: Nevertheless it is a fact that the real value is higher than it was at Christmas, 1965, as stated in my Answer, and the noble Lord will take into account that supplementary benefits have recently been increased.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the percentage increase in real terms of the purchasing power of the retirement pension between October 1960 and October 1964, and between October 1964 and October 1968.

Mr. Swingler: About 19 per cent. and 14 per cent., respectively, for the standard rate of retirement pension.

Mr. Ridsdale: Does not this show that during the time of Conservative rule pensioners were looked after much better than during the time of the Labour Government's rule? Would the Minister also say how much of the first increase in pension under the Labour Government led to this?

Mr. Swingler: It all depends on the period one picks. If we had picked the first four years of Conservative rule from


1951 the answer would have been 10½ per cent. compared with 14 per cent. during the first four years of Labour rule after 1964. I am giving the increase in real value. The Government have increased the real value in very difficult times.

Lord Balniel: In view of the fact that it is already expected that the cost of living next year will rise by over 7 per cent., does the Prime Minister's statement last January, that there will be no increase in the pension till next autumn, still hold good?

Mr. Swingler: While I do not accept what the hon. Member has said about the increase in the cost of living, I would point out that we have said many times that any increase would be taken into account in any review, and that is the nature of the undertaking about the review in the autumn of next year.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the value of the basic retirement pension in real terms, as compared to its value in October, 1964; and what proposals he has to increase pensions within the next six months.

Mr. Swingler: The basic retirement pension is worth, in real terms, 14 per cent. more than the pension in payment in October, 1964. My right hon. Friend has no proposals for any increase within the next six months.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government have little to apologise for in their record in this matter in the last four years? Nevertheless, since the Prime Minister himself said that the lower-paid and lower income groups would be protected from the effects of devaluation and consequent measures, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be a substantial increase in the old-age pension very soon?

Mr. Swingler: In answer to a previous Question I said that an increase was not envisaged before the autumn of next year. I can assure my hon. Friend—especially in the light of what he said at the beginning of his supplementary question, which I very much appreciate—that all the factors that he has mentioned will be taken fully into account.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman really aware of the hardships which old people face in the coming months? If he cannot give an increase during the next six months, will he give an assurance that old people will get an increase before the next General Election?

Mr. Swingler: The hon. Member will be aware that two substantial increases have been given, which have raised the pension 14 per cent. in real value above the value of October, 1964. He may also be aware that the Government have recently approved an increase in supplementary benefits. I do not pretend that the situation is entirely satisfactory but I hope that the hon. Member will take this into account and remember that the Government will take into consideration all factors in making their next review.

Disabled Persons (Motor Vehicles)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what fresh proposals he has for issuing four-wheeled vehicles to disabled drivers.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Julian Snow): My right hon. Friend is unable at present to extend further the classes of patients eligible for cars.

Mr. Marten: Would the Minister consider issuing a priority list of those who will be issued with four-wheelers from the moment resources become available? In the meantime, would he bear in mind the burden on disabled drivers and consider seriously increasing the allowance for petrol, as petrol has risen 9d. in nine months while disabled drivers have received no help towards that at all?

Mr. Snow: I think that that second question is a rather different issue, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on it I will seriously consider it. As to the first point, the hon. Gentleman will understand how very anxious we are to restrain public expenditure, and I know he will do his part to help us in this matter.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the point put forward by the joint committee on the mobility of the disabled, namely, that in the long term public expenditure would be saved by using Ministerial resources to


adapt mass production cars for the disabled rather than on producing vehicles especially for them?

Mr. Snow: Yes, that matter is being considered very closely by my Department. It is not a new suggestion, but what we have to protect is the interests of as many disabled people as possible who demand and require personal mobility.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the total cost in the last convenient period of 12 months of maintaining his Department's three-wheeled disabled drivers' vehicles.

Mr. Snow: About £1½ million.

Mr. Marten: If the Minister pressed for the production of the new prototype P5 and also issued a few more four-wheeled vehicles, would not the great cost of maintenance come down?

Mr. Snow: The average annual maintenance grant paid to recipients of cars is £80 compared with a not strictly comparable figure of £76 for three-wheeled vehicles. I myself think that the production of the P5, which, I think, is the vehicle the hon. Gentleman has in mind, is going on very satisfactorily. It is largely a technical problem at the moment.

Departmental Staff

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what administrative savings have now been made in staff due to the amalgamation of Departments that has taken place in the social services; and how the staff of his combined Department compares with the position in December, 1964.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to what extent he expects to be able to make staff reductions in the two former Ministries of Health and Pensions and National Insurance as a result of their amalgamation in his new Department.

Mr. Crossman: The main purpose of the mergers of social service Departments that have taken place during the past two years was not so much to save staff as to secure better co-ordination of social security policy. Since 1964 the services

have been expanded and improved by measures including earnings-related supplements to flat rate contributory benefits and the new scheme of supplementary benefits which has attracted nearly half a million additional beneficiaries.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Secretary of State aware that what many people on retirement pension want is real help and not paper staff work?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I think I am aware of this, and that is why the hon. Member will, I hope, study the end of my Answer, when he will see that I said the new scheme of supplementary benefits has attracted 500,000 additional beneficiaries. That is not paper—that is half a million people who were entitled to supplementary benefit under the Tories and did not get it, but got it, for the first time, under our entitlement scheme.

Mr. Fisher: Was not one of the objectives of amalgamating the two Departments together that there should also be an effect in reducing the numbers of civil servants, whose number has steadily risen ever since this Government took office? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that that should be one of the objects? If so, when, and to what exent, does he expect to achieve it?

Mr. Crossman: Of course it is one of the objects, but I have pointed out that I am not expecting a net saving on the merging of the two Departments for the reason I have given; because in social security there has been an enormous expansion of the work, and the very proper public demand that we should see there is no abuse of the work. These things put together mean that in social security we might, if anything, have an increase of staff.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Nevertheless. may I ask the Secretary of State if he would look at the figures again to see if he can stop the very rapid increase over the last 15 months or so of some 12 per cent. at the combined Ministries and help the rationalisation of their forecast and stop the increase in numbers?

Mr. Crossman: I have looked at these figures very carefully. I do not think it is true of the combined Ministry. I


would emphasise that in social security there has been an increase of staff because of the three major changes—earnings-related supplement to flat-rate unemployment and sickness benefit, on the one side; and the transformation of our national assistance into supplementary benefit on the other; and thirdly the investigation required. All this could not possibly have been done without an increase in staff.

Prescription Charges

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice his Department issue to mothers of still-born children regarding prescription charges.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): A note on the exemption certificate asks that it should be returned in the event of miscarriage or the death of the child.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that many pharmacists are finding difficulty in understanding precisely what this means and that there is great confusion in this matter? Would he try to do something about this with a view to trying to make clear the rights which mothers of still-born children have in this matter?

Mr. Ennals: The fact that my hon. Friend has asked this Question may help to clarify the matter. The advice is certainly regarded as applicable in the case of the stillborn child and I think the majority of pharmacists know this to be so.

Mr. Dean: Does not this show that there are still many rough edges on the prescription charges scheme with the exemption, and can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will look at this in order to try to smooth them away?

Mr. Ennals: I think initially we recognised that there were one or two areas which needed to be improved. We have already improved them. Of course if any further changes are required we will seriously look at them. However, I am satisfied that the system is working satisfactorily.

Mr. Cronin: Would not the most helpful action be to abolish prescription charges as rapidly as possible?

Mr. Ennals: I think my hon. Friend knows that if we were to do this we would from some other source have to find £25 million of very valuable revenue.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if general practitioners in rural areas who dispense medicines for their own patients will receive additional remuneration for the collection and other arrangements involved in prescription charges.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir.

Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is causing considerable difficulty for rural practitioners, who feel that they are being paid half a crown for their services—about one-tenth of what a plumber gets? If my hon. Friend cannot provide extra pay for them will he consider some kind of propaganda campaign, so that patients will be aware of the situation?

Mr. Ennals: No undertaking was given, nor was the matter raised when the scheme was initiated. The rural doctor has much less of a job to do than the chemist. He is not required to secure a written declaration of entitlement to exemption. He does not have to give a receipt and collect the refund. He knows his patients in a way that the chemist does not. Therefore, the problems for him are very much less onerous than they are for the chemist.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this matter is causing considerable concern among rural practitioners, who find that their costs are rising? There is also the fact that it is becoming increasingly difficult for patients to get to their places of business. This is a matter of importance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his answer.

Mr. Ennals: I will bear in mind the points that have been raised by hon. Gentlemen, but it is my present conclusion that there is no need for a change.

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how he intends to check the veracity of persons who claim to be exempt from prescription charges because they hold a season exemption certificate; and what is his estimate of the cost of this check.

Mr. Ennals: Comprehensive records maintained by executive councils and social security offices, including records of the issue or prepayment certificates, enable them to determine whether or not patients are entitled to exemption and systematic sample checking is already in progress. I would expect the total additional cost to be of the order of £50,000 a year, only a small part of which would relate to declarations concerning prepayment certificates.

Mr. Pavitt: Does that £50,000 include any legal prosecutions that may arise?

Mr. Ennals: It does not include them, and one naturally hopes that they will not arise. My present impression is that there is likely to be very little misappropriation or failure to carry out the regulations. I hope that it will not be necessary for any prosecutions to be instituted.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would it not be a tremendous saving if Income Tax were used as the means test to end all means tests, and all these investigations of people's circumstances were dropped?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member is doing his best, but that is another question.

Mr. Lomas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to designate all patients who need hospital treatment as chronic sick and exempt them from prescription charges.

Mr. Ennals: No, Sir. No charges are made to in-patients, but we do not think there are grounds for any general differentiation between hospital out-patients and the patients of general practitioners.

Mr. Lomas: Does the Minister not appreciate that prescription charges are completely against the principle of a health service free for all in time of need, in which we believe? Does he realise that hon. Members on this side of the House believe that people who need hospital treatment are being penalised—especially those on low wages? Cannot something be done about this?

Mr. Ennals: Those who have very small incomes are exempted. I told the House in answer to earlier questions, that approximately 50 per cent. of the general public is exempted. I am certain that the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend would lead to a great deal of difficulty.

Mr. Lomas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the cost of additional staff in hospitals needed for the collection of prescription charges and of the cost of the additional clerical and bookkeeping work involved; and if this sum will be taken into consideration when he assesses the benefit to the Exchequer accruing from these charges.

Mr. Ennals: About £75,000; this has already been taken into consideration.

Mr. Lomas: Is the Minister aware that early this afternoon he gave a figure of savings amounting to £25 million through the imposition of prescription charges? Does not he now agree that with the additional cost involved it is not worth the candle to do this kind of thing to people who are in need? Will he seriously consider abolishing the whole scheme?

Mr. Ennals: I am afraid that I do not for a moment accept my hon. Friend's conclusions.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Why not?

Mr. Ennals: Because when the estimate of the £25 million saving was made the figure I have given and other figures were taken into consideration. The amount of money involved is very important in terms of the expansion of the hospital services.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that this £25 million saving is not a real one but is only a saving in terms of the transfer payments involved, whereas the waste of manpower involved in clerical operations such as he has mentioned represents the true cost to the nation, since the people concerned could be employed on more useful duties?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member has referred to clerical workers. Only about 100 clerical staff are concerned. In the majority of cases the work is done by other persons doing tasks additional to those that they were already doing.

Special Investigation Officers (Powers)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what instructions have been given to the special investigation officers of the Department of Social Security to ensure that they do


not assume untenable rights of entry to and search of private houses.

Mr. Crossman: It is made clear to all officers dealing with claimants to supplementary benefit that they have no right of entry into houses.

Mr. Fortescue: I am grateful for that reply. Would not the Secretary of State agree that many people who are visited by these officers are very hazy about their rights, and that it is, therefore, essential that the officers when calling should make it completely clear to the householder that they, the officers, have no right either of entry or of search?

Mr. Crossman: I think I know the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I have personally looked into it. I am convinced that the officer in question was a perfectly normal officer and did what he should. Mind you, when people are vague about their rights they will ask somebody inside from the front door because they do not want to be seen talking to him at the door.

Drugs (Prices)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will reconsider his recent policy of deciding on a re-imbursable price for prescription drugs based on the price of imported products presented in simple forms, in view of its discouraging effect on the main British-based pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Ennals: I take it that the hon. Member has in mind those few drugs which are prescribed by generic name and which are marketed only under brand names and at more than one price. My right hon. Friend sees no reason to alter the long-standing practice of fixing the reimbursable price of these drugs on the assumption that chemists will have bought the lowest priced brand generally available. He has, however, decided to make a change in the form in which the reimbursable price is notified to avoid mentioning any brand by name.

Mr. Fortescue: Now that the imperative need for the saving of imports has been made all the more dramatic by the Government's recent actions, would not the Minister of State agree that the dispensers' reimbursement fee should in future be based upon the much reduced

prices of the old established and reputable British-made brands rather than on doubtful and untried imported brands?

Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman would be wrong in assuming that the cheapest brand is always the imported brand. He must also recognise that, while we must watch the balance of payments, we must also watch the cost, and our anxiety is to see not only that the appropriate and suitable drug is available but that we get value for money.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Minister of State give two undertakings to the House; first, that any use of cheaper imports, or cheaper home manufacture for that matter, does not result in a narrower range of preparations being available, that is to say, only in the more simple form of capsules and tablets; secondly, to watch for any fall off in safety or efficacy, as happened some years ago in the case of a tetracycline syrup for children?

Mr. Ennals: I will watch both these matters, but the changes to which I referred in my answer will have neither of these implications.

Social Insurance (White Paper)

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the White Paper on future development of social insurance will be published.

Mr. Crossman: As I have already said, later this winter.

Mr. Campbell: Will the White Paper be limited to the National Insurance system and the social security system, or will it deal also with the Health Service?

Mr. Crossman: We had better await the White Paper. It is likely to be a formidable document. It certainly will have some relation to the Health Service.

Mr. Marks: Was it not the Government's intention that a Green Paper should first be published so that there should be adequate discussions on this at all levels in the community, including trade union branches?

Mr. Crossman: It will be a White Paper which will stimulate discussion. It will make perfectly clear that, before we finalise the arrangements for the Bill


which we hope to present in the next Session, we are willing and eager to hear representations from all sides.

Mr. Worsley: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is true that this publication is being held up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, I can deny that.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already the Health Service is under discussion in the Green Paper, in the Todd Report on Medical Education and in the Seebohm Report? Is not this the last straw that will break this camel's back?

Mr. Crossman: When he sees the White Paper the right hon. Gentleman will find that it will be concerned only with the issue of the Health Service contribution.

Disabled Persons (Study)

Mr. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action the Government expect to follow the completion of the field work in January of the study of the disabled being carried out by the Government Social Survey.

Mr. Grossman: This will largely depend on the results of the survey.

Mr. Campbell: Will the Government ensure that appropriate bodies are given the task of pursuing the next stages of this investigation, once the information about the disabled is available, in order to ensure that the impetus is maintained?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider that suggestion. The survey will be a formidable affair, and tabulation and analysis will take some months. I will consider any proposals for the constructive use of the figures and statistics when we have obtained them.

Scientology

Mr. Hordern: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a further statement on the practice of Scientology.

Mr. Crossman: After careful consideration, I have decided that the right course is to leave things as they are, at any rate for the present. The specific

measures announced by my predecessor were directed at limiting the number of foreign nationals studying and practising scientology here; I consider that these are justified on the basis of existing information. No further measures are contemplated.

Mr. Hordern: Is the Minister aware that that is about as unsatisfactory an answer as could be made by the Government? The Government have sufficient information, one supposes, to justify the actions which they have already taken. Should not this information be made public, so that at least the Press and other people can make free comment upon what the Ministry already knows?

Mr. Crossman: I considered the possibility or desirability of two courses of action. One was a public inquiry and the other a White Paper. I have not excluded the possibility of a public inquiry, but I would like to reflect further on these matters. I think it would be an abuse of our tradition to publish a White Paper until after the inquiry had taken place.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that in reply to a question on the last occasion he quite rightly described Scientology as a fraud? Is it not right, if it is a fraud, that the Press and others should be able to say so outside the House, and could he not set up an inquiry to make this possible?

Mr. Crossman: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are strong reasons for an inquiry along those lines. I think that the Press is free to print the truth about Scientology, and I have no doubt that, in this sense, my hon. Friend's action last July has resulted in a great deal of the truth being published with favourable effects on the behaviour of the Scientologists, who have withdrawn one or two of their more contentious claims, but I should rather leave things as they are at the moment.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of citizens, some of them councillors, in East Grinstead who can be inhibited from making what I regard as perfectly fair and proper comment in pursuit of their public duties because of the inaction of the Government, or, if not because of that, at least because,


under prevailing conditions, they feel, as a result of libel writs issued on them, that they must pursue a policy of silence, and the right hon. Gentleman's statement has hardly been helpful to them.

Mr. Crossman: I would not agree wholly with the hon. Gentleman, because it is my impression that a great deal of valuable investigation has taken place by the Press and a great deal of interesting information has been published, despite threats of libel action, which have not materialised. I think that the Press is to be congratulated on the thorough investigation it is doing on this activity.

Lord Balniel: I regret that I find the right hon. Gentleman's answer unsatisfactory. Does not he feel that it would be better to have an impartial objective inquiry rather than taking Executive action based on evidence of which some of us are aware, but of which the public are not aware?

Mr. Crossman: As I said on the last occasion when I answered Questions on this matter, I think that this is a very evenly balanced issue. There are arguments in favour of a public inquiry, but, for the moment, I should like to let the matter run because, on the whole, we are getting a lot of information published, and I think that what I described last time as fraudulent practices are, to some extent, being curbed.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in how many cases proceedings have been taken against Scientologists for offences against our laws? If the right hon. Gentleman's complaint against Scientologists and the action taken by his predecessor was taken solely on the ground that they were socially undesirable activities, is not that a dangerous precedent to set in the sense that it might be applied to many other religions?

Mr. Crossman: I think that the action taken was justified on the basis of the information that we had. The action did not take the form of prosecution, but merely forbidding foreign nationals to study and practise Scientology here. That seemed a legitimate course of action, but I do not propose to take any further measures.

Social Security Benefits (Checks)

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what success has been achieved from the policy of making more rigorous checks on the bona fides of young people applying for social security benefits.

Mr. Swingler: I understand that my hon. Friend is referring to the new steps relating to young unemployed persons announced by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General as Minister of Social Security, on 25th July, following consultation with the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Between 14th October and 19th November, 8,950 young, single, unskilled men were given short term allowances under these arrangements when they first claimed; and 605 men and women under age 45 had their allowances curtailed on review after receiving them for three months. In the same period 113 appeals were heard against cessation of an allowance, of which 10 were revised by the Appeal Tribunals.

Mr. Davidson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the measures to which he has referred for tightening the procedures by which young people get supplementary benefits will be welcomed in the country as a whole? Can my hon. Friend say whether there is any evidence that many young people are deliberately choosing, or applying, for supplementary benefits instead of applying for work?

Mr. Swingler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning of his supplementary question.
I think there is evidence that this campaign has been successful in getting these people into employment, and these measures are, therefore, being continued.

Mr. Nott: Although many alleged cases of abuse are based on hearsay, and do not stand up to detailed examination, it is, nevertheless, demoralising for a wide section of the working population, and particularly the elderly, who genuinely believe that many young people, particularly in seaside areas, are abusing the Social Security scheme. Will the Minister do all in his power to let local Social Security offices show what they are doing to check abuses?

Mr. Swingler: I shall be grateful for any suggestions as to how we might better the present system. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to stamp out any abuse which occurs. I shall be grateful for any evidence of such matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that any cases will be thoroughly investigated.

War Widows

Sir R. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many widows of former field marshals are included in the 115,900 war widows who receive pensions.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): One, Sir.

Sir R. Russell: In that case, was it not unworthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use as an argument against exempting war widows' pensions from taxation that the widows of field-marshals would have to be included? Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. Pentland: As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions on Income Tax should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Dean: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the priorities which were allocated to war widows under the previous set-up will be continued, and can he say which Minister has specific responsibility for these matters?

Mr. Pentland: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question about that. I shall answer it.

Sir R. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many war pensions are paid to widows of soldiers who were killed while driving army lorries in Great Britain during the Firs' and Second World Wars.

Mr. Pentland: I regret that this information is not available.

Sir R. Russell: May I put a similar supplementary question to that which I put on the last Question, and ask the hon. Gentleman to request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the whole of this problem?

Mr. Pentland: The hon. Gentleman must accept my previous reply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will, of course, see what the hon. Gentleman has said, but questions relating to Income Tax are not for me.

Graduated Insurance Pensions

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the proposed graduated national insurance pensions will be adjustable to take account of changes in the cost of living.

Mr. Swingler: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to await the White Paper on the Government's proposals.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread apprehension that the Government's graduated scheme will be a backstairs take-over of the private insurance companies? Will the hon. Gentleman give us some assurance about that?

Mr. Swingler: I think that my right hon. Friend dealt with that earlier today. The widespread apprehensions will be ended very shortly.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: When may we expect the White Paper? We have been waiting quite a long time for it.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Incentives

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what studies he has made to ascertain the proportion of marginal spending power which may be withdrawn from individuals through the incidence of income tax, National Insurance contributions or through the loss of entitlement to special supplements or other benefits without any measurably depressing effect on the incentive to increase earnings.

Mr. Crossman: The points at which these widely disparate items might begin to have an adverse effect on incentives to earn more must obviously vary considerably not only from item to item, but also from individual to individual according to income, family circumstances and disposition. I doubt whether an attempt to subject them to precise measurement would assist greatly in solving the problem.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will not the application of selectivity in the social services always be limited by the effect on incentives? Is not this a matter which deserves widespread investigation?

Mr. Crossman: Yes, Sir. My only point was that I doubt whether the kind of investigation which the hon. Gentleman wanted would tell us a great deal about it, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his conclusion. I think that the application of selectivity reduces incentives, and, therefore, should be avoided wherever it is humanly possible.

Low Income Families

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent estimate he has made of the number of men in full-time employment whose family income is less than that obtainable through unemployment benefit and social security provision; and what action he is taking to reduce this number.

Mr. Swingler: Our main object in increasing Family Allowances this year was to help such families. No reliable estimate of the effect of these increases or of how many such families there are now, is available.

Social Security Benefits (Negative Taxation)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what study he has made of the computerisation of the individual family into a positive-negative income tax system; and what plans he has within the ambit of the current major social security review for introducing social security benefits based on negative taxation.

Mr. Crossman: On the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 7th March, 1968. On the second part of the Question, the Government's proposals for the future of national insurance will be announced in the forthcoming White Paper.—[Vol. 760, c. 134.]

Mr. Roberts: But would not my right hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of the

steps the Government are taking to close gaps in the social security system, immense gaps will remain unless there is some system of a negative Income Tax basis with a work incentive? Will my right hon. Friend give priority to helping lower-paid workers by introducing some scheme with that sort of basis?

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that helping lower-paid workers is necessarily only to be achieved by introducing negative Income Tax, of whose practicability I am profoundly sceptical, if for no other reason than that there are a great many workers who do not pay Income Tax.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that P.A.Y.E. and the social security system run so closely together that they should be combined, and would not he agree that, if they were combined, there would be substantial administrative savings?

Mr. Crossman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman observed the skill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the last occasion in his notorious claw-back in getting the first successful combination between Social Security and Income Tax personal allowances.

Mr. Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the negative Income Tax experiment that is being run by the Office of Economic Opportunity in the States? It so, will he look at it very carefully, because negative Income Tax can be a radical means of supplementing low wages? It is not necessary for the workers concerned to be paying Income Tax.

Mr. Crossman: It may not be necessary, but one of the claimed advantages of the scheme is that one has a single form to fill in whether one is receiving from or giving to the State. The point I made was that millions would have to fill in forms who had never filled in an Income Tax form in their lives. I suggest that there really are very great practical difficulties in the scheme being tested in the States, and I cannot give my hon. Friend any confidence that in the near future we shall be able to rely on it as a kind of cornucopia.

Cigarettes

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why he will not introduce legislation this Session to


restrict cigarette advertising and sales promotion; and what further steps he is taking to increase the effectiveness of deterrent propaganda against smoking among young people.

Mr. Crossman: I am now considering a number of proposals designed to discourage cigarette smoking, especially among young people. The preparation of adequate measures is by no means easy and it is unlikely that the Parliamentary timetable will allow legislation this Session. The Health Education Council is undertaking several measures of publicity, and also research into the effectiveness of the smoking and health campaign and of the different techniques that can be used.

Mr. Cronin: I appreciate that there are some difficulties in this matter, but is it not the case that my right hon. Friend accepts the report of the Chief Medical Officer of the Ministry of Health that over 50,000 people die yearly as a result of cigarette smoking? Would he not, therefore, agree that it must follow that in course of next year another 50,000 people will be lured to their deaths by the cigarette manufacturers, and is there not some urgency in the matter?

Mr. Crossman: There is enormous urgency in the matter, and I accept the figures of Sir George Godber. But the sole issue is not how or whether one taxes cigarette advertising: there are other ways of handling the problem, and I believe that our own positive propaganda, especially to young people, must take top priority.

Mr. Mawby: Will the right hon. Gentleman not ignore the fact that at present the tax from tobacco is almost equal to the cost of the whole National Health Service?

Mr. Crossman: I certainly do not ignore it, and I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not, either.

Welder's Siderosis

Mr. Wiley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the disease suffered by shipyard workers and known as welder's lung.

Mr. Pentland: I assume that my right hon. Friend has in mind welder's side

rosis or iron-oxide lung. This is a benign condition which causes neither symptoms nor disability. Toxic fumes or dust which may arise in the welding process may occasionally cause disablement. Such cases are already covered either by the accident provisions of the Industrial Injuries Act or in the existing schedule of prescribed diseases.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply and for the pains he has taken over this inquiry. Is he aware that we have recently been very disturbed in the shipyards at the incidence of this disease? That being so, will he see that closer attention is paid to it, so that the cause can be diagnosed more carefully? This disease has caused very serious disturbance on both sides of the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Pentland: I am well aware of that, and I am also aware of the individual case in my right hon. Friend's constituency. If he will allow me to, I will write to him about the case, and deal with the various aspects.

Aids for the Disabled

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking pursuant to the report of the British Medical Association on Aids for the Disabled, a copy of which is in his possession.

Mr. Ennals: We are at present considering the report.

Mr. Willey: As many of the recommendations can be carried out administratively, will my hon. Friend expedite this consideration and as soon as possible publish a reply saying what steps he feels able to take?

Mr. Ennals: I am giving urgent consideration to a number of the proposals. Some of them are quite complicated, requiring much more than administrative decision. But it is a very valuable report, and it has been treated very seriously. I will let my right hon. Friend know the outcome.

Atmospheric Pollution (Carbon Monoxide)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the amount of carbon


monoxide discharged into the atmosphere each year; at what rate he estimates that it will increase; and what accumulative effect he estimates that it will have on health.

Mr. Crossman: None, Sir. I understand that such an estimate would have little practical value. The total amount discharged is likely to increase broadly in accordance with any increase in the output from petrol-driven vehicles. No cumulative effects on health are expected.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an increasing number of people are becoming alarmed about air pollution? Can he give a categorical assurance to the House and to the country that the build-up of carbon monoxide, due to the increasing number of vehicles on the road, is not likely to provide a hazard to health?

Mr. Crossman: Yes. I have just given it.

Scotland (Minister's Visit)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his recent official tour of certain areas in Scotland.

Mr. Crossman: I visited three of our Department's local offices and a reception re-establishment centre. I was much encouraged by the way in which the staff are tackling the heavy load of work which they are bearing, often under difficult conditions. I was also very interested to visit Livingston new town. I have no other statement to make.

Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his visit to Scotland created a great deal of interest? As a result of that interest, is he not going to put forward any suggested alterations?

Mr. Crossman: No. I was extremely interested to see the offices and the excellence of their work. I am relieved to hear that the excitement that my visit created was of a favourable nature.

Family Planning Service

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local health authorities are now giving a fully comprehensive family planning service, including facilities for unmarried girls;

how many are giving a partial service; and how many are providing no service at all.

Mr. Ennals: Of the 169 authorities which have so far reported to my Department all but one report provision of a service, and about 80 per cent. report some expansion as a result of the 1967 Act. Sixty-five authorities specifically mention provision of some service for the unmarried.

Mr. Fisher: Those are disappointing figures a year after the passage of the Family Planning Act. Why has the whole comprehensive service not been more widely provided? Is it due to lack of interest or to lack of cash?

Mr. Ennals: There was an expansion of the service even before the 1967 Act was passed. The expansion of the service has been substantially accelerated as a result of the passing of the Act. It is true that there are some authorities which have made it clear that they have not expanded their services as far as they would wish, for financial reasons. There are a number of authorities which have made clear what their future plans are but have not carried them out in the present financial year.

Mr. David Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has apparently told local authorities in a circular that, as an economy measure, they should not proceed with family planning clinics? Is not this one of the strangest economy measures of all?

Mr. Ennals: That is a question which must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. No such circular has been issued from my Ministry.

Mature Students (Insurance Contributions)

Mr. Howie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will seek to arrange for the National Insurance contributions of mature students in teacher training colleges to be credited to them for the duration of the course of study.

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. These students are not obliged to pay contributions for


periods of full-time study, but in fairness to the general body of contributors to the National Insurance Scheme there must be strict limits to the circumstances in. which contributions can be credited.

Mr. Howie: But is it not wrong that, although these mature students need not pay contributions, they forgo their pension rights and other benefits meantime? Is there any reason why mature students should be treated worse in this respect than young students, whose family responsibililies are usually much less and who can the more readily afford the contributions involved?

Mr. Pentland: No, Sir. If the mature student was paying the non-employed rate of contribution there are special arrangements enabling him to have certain cover if he had a substantial period of employment before the course. He would benefit by this concession, which is for the mature students.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Has not the time cone to eliminate the whole antiquated nonsense of counting contributions and stamp-licking, and to integrate National Insurance contributions into Income Tax?

Mr. Pentland: That is another question. If the hon. Member puts it on the Order Paper I shall try to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Rugby (Medical Services)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had with the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board over the future of medical services in Rugby.

Mr. Crossman: The board has assured me that it its intention to maintain St. Cross Hospital with at least its present size for the foreseeable future. The board is at present reviewing its future capital programme, including proposals for expanding this hospital.

Mr. Price: May I thank the Depart-men: for its continuing interest in our problems, but would the Minister agree that many of the fears of my constitu-

ents would not have arisen if the Board had told them what it was doing? Can he take any steps at all to improve its public relations?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says and discuss the problem with the Board.

Road Casualties (Hospital Charges)

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will increase to an economic level the charge for hospital services after a road accident for which a driver is liable.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend is considering action to increase the charges payable under the Road Traffic Act, 1960.

Mr. Allason: But as these charges are only 12s. 6d. at the moment, is not this a rather extraordinary way of tackling the problem? Why should those who are injured but who can well afford to pay even the heavy costs incurred pay only 12s. 6d. when they can afford to pay the full charge?

Mr. Ennals: Increases are at present being negotiated, and consultations are well advanced, and I expect to make a fairly early announcement about this.

Nurses

Mr. Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for relieving the present shortage of operating theatre nurses.

Mr. Snow: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 18th November to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan).—[Vol. 773. c. 211.]

Mr. Dean: Will the hon. Gentleman say when the report is expected, and will he comment on the alarming reports from many parts of the country that staff vacancies are not being filled because there is no money to pay the salaries?

Mr. Snow: The latter point raised by the hon. Gentleman is at present receiving the urgent attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is important to remember that the total of all nursing staff is now at the highest ever


recorded level. We are taking steps to try to relieve nurses with special skills of unnecessary duties. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not possible to lay down a hard and fast rule about the number needed in operating theatres, for instance, since the design of these theatres is so varied and makes different demands.

Birmingham (Ear, Nose and Throat Operations)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for the Social Services whether he is satisfied with the facilities available for ear, nose and throat operations on children in the Birmingham area; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ennals: Cases of medical urgency are admitted at once but the waiting period for other ear, nose and throat patients has lengthened recently. The Board have been asked urgently to consider what steps can be taken to improve the situation.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister not recognise that he is condoning a pretty harsh definition of urgency, and that for a boy who is known to be deaf to have to wait nine months for an operation to give him hearing is particularly harsh, bearing in mind the amount of valuable education time he loses for ever?

Mr. Ennals: This is a matter for clinical judgment, but I certainly agree that it is important that those who are likely to suffer as a result of not being admitted at the time when they would wish should be given some priority; it is a question of the degree of priority.

Mrs. Knight: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Cervical Cancer Tests

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for the Social Services whether he will extend the provision of cervical cancer smear tests for women under 35 years of age.

Mr. Ennals: Not at present, though we are keeping this matter under review.

Mrs. Knight: Since in reply to questions on 15th November the Minister made it plain that it was neither a ques-

tion of cost nor of pressure on the service for the women over 39, will he not now reconsider the matter, bearing in mind that it is the women between 29 and 39 who have had children who are supposed to be at greatest risk?

Mr. Ennals: From the figures we have at present, it looks as though about £1½ million women will be tested during the current year. This will be a considerable increase, and many of them are women of 35 and less. But there is a regrettable reluctance on the part of too many older women to come forward for testing. Lives are at stake here. We must give priority to the over-35s, who are so much more at risk than those under 35.

Alton

Miss Quennell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will instruct the hospital boards to issue a directive, so that people in the Alton area may know with certainty to which hospital their relatives or children have been taken in emergencies, or after road accidents.

Mr. Snow: No, Sir. When a patient is admitted after an emergency or accident it is normal practice for the hospital to see that relatives are informed.

Miss Quennell: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been instances in this town in my constituency when parents, informed of the destination of their child, have arrived at the hospital and found that the child had been sent to a completely different hospital quite outside the accepted run of the hospitals receiving emergencies?

Mr. Snow: I should like to look into this case, and perhaps the hon. Lady will send me the details. We have a drill laid on, which has worked reasonably well whereby the police, when they have been concerned in an accident, inform the relatives, and whereby, when casualties have been brought into the hospital direct, the hospital notifies the relatives, if necessary with police help. I should like to examine a case such as the hon. Lady has mentioned.

Accident and Emergency Services

Miss Quennell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why he will not allow group hospital management


committees to provide such accident and emergency facilities within their hospitals as appear necessary to them, in view of their local knowledge and experience.

Mr. Ennals: Because these services need to be planned and organised on a regional basis to make the best use of resources in the interests of patients.

Miss Quennell: Does that reply mean that hospital committees of group hospitals do not have the right and power to provide facilities in the towns where hospitals already exist, fully equipped, and where casualty and emergency services are already run on a part-time basis?

Mr. Ennals: These are matters that are discussed between the hospital management committee and the regional hospital board, but it is the regional hospital board that has to do the planning for the whole region. There are difficulties. While it may be possible in a particular locality to provide these services, let us say, for 12 hours during the day, to do it on a 24-hour basis may be very wasteful of urgently needed personnel.

Student Nurses

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to ensure that student nurses are provided with completely free educational facilities to advance their professional knowledge and qualifications; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: Student nurses already receive free training.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my hon. Friend investigate the possibility of circumstances in which student nurses have to pay for their own travel to and from their colleges, and for exercise books and recommended textbooks? This is difficult on a low income.

Mr. Snow: It is true that they pay for their own textbooks, because they retain them after registration. One has also to bear in mind in all these cases that nurses who are registered do not necessarily go into the National Health Service. But apart from all that, if my hon. Friend will send me some details, I should like to look at this particular case of travelling costs.

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what

safeguards he imposes to prevent the use of student nurses as cheap labour in hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Snow: Guidance was given last year to hospital authorities on improving training arrangements for student nurses. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the memorandum.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that though it may be necessary to use student nurses for certain practical work in the hospitals, the work should not be such that they turn out for their theoretical training lectures in a very tired state?

Mr. Snow: If by "practical work" my hon. Friend means domestic work, I should like to look into the matter. It might largely be a question of poor management in the hospital. If it is a question of relatively untrained nurses being given responsibilities which are too heavy for their qualifications, this is a matter of training which we are at present investigating.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the hon. Gentleman also look into the situation at a number of hospitals where student nurses employed in the theatre outnumber trained personnel? Will he also look into the question of student nurses being on call—which, I understand, is at present the case in some 15 hospitals—which cannot do anything but eat into their rest or training periods?

Mr. Snow: I will look into the last matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but my earlier reply on training covers his first point.

Regional Boards and Managements Committees (Nominations)

Mr. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are taken by him to ensure wide publicity before nominations to regional hospital boards and hospital management committees are considered; and if he will take steps to ensure that those responsible for appointments state publicly the criteria by which they are guided.

Mr. Crossman: Before making appointments to regional hospital boards I am required to consult a wide range


of bodies and organisations, as are regional hospital Boards before making appointments to hospital management committees. I am anxious that those appointed represent a cross section of the local community.

Mr. Macdonald: First, does my right hon. Friend agree that public confidence in these bodies—which do good work—would be enhanced by greater publicity about their appointments? Secondly, is he aware that in many quarters there is a feeling that these bodies are secretly appointed—although I grant that this feeling is erroneous?

Mr. Crossman: I shall consider that. It is my impression, from the number of nominations received, that those entitled to nominate know and use their right to the full.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When is the right hon. Gentleman going to do away with regional hospitals boards altogether, which many people believe to be unnecessary middlemen?

Mr. Crossman: That is a rather different question.

BIRMINGHAM WATER PIPELINE (EXPLOSION)

Mr. Gurden: Mr. Gurden (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will make a statement on the destruction of the Birmingham water main supply from Wales.

The Minister for Planning and Land (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): At 1.48 a.m. today an explosion occurred at West Hagley, near Stourbridge, fracturing two of four water pipes carrying the main supplies to Birmingham and adjacent areas. The explosion took place at a point where the pipelines cross the Kidderminster to Stourbridge railway line. No one was injured.
First estimates of the effect of the damage suggest that the capacity of the pipeline is likely to have been reduced by about one-third. Though this is serious and calls for economy in the use of water, there is no immediate threat to supplies to the areas served by the city's water undertaking; water in storage reservoirs is equivalent to a week's total demand.
One of the Department's engineering inspectors is on the spot and will report as soon as possible. It is too soon to say with certainty how long repair work will take, but I would expect a full flow to be restored in under a week.

Mr. Gurden: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he appreciate that the whole of the water supply for over I million people in the Midlands comes from Wales and that this is their only source of supply? What safeguards does he suggest against any such future incident, which could be very much worse if it was tackled in another place?

Mr. Robinson: I am aware of the facts about Birmingham's water supply, as stated by the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he is aware that Birmingham has proposals for increasing the storage capacity to about a month's supply. The protection of the water supply lines is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Abse: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Wales will have heard with considerable dismay of this further act, an act which seems to indicate that extremists who do not belong to the main bulk of the Welsh people are yet again active? Will he have consultations with the Home Secretary to see whether a special squad can now be formed so that there can be a further probe into acts which are bringing most unfortunate disrepute to the people of Wales, who have nothing but friendship and understanding for the needs of the people of Birmingham?

Mr. Robinson: It would be premature for me to say anything about responsibility for the explosion while the police are urgently investigating the incident. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will take full cognisance of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the Minister agree that this incident was particularly deplorable in that, though fortunately nobody was killed or injured by the explosion, it took place adjoining a railway line used by hundreds of passengers each day? Anything wrong with the timing mechanism could have resulted in


great loss of life. The whole House will wish to express its horror at this incident.

Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I agree entirely that the consequences of this action might have been very much more serious than they have proved to be. It is a very remote part of the railway line.

Mr. James Griffiths: May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and say that the vast majority of the people of Wales will deplore this incident? As there have been several such incidents recently, will my right hon. Friend consult whichever Minister is responsible to find out whether it is possible to tighten up the arrangements for keeping explosives? It seems to be far too easy to get gelignite in these clays in Wales and elsewhere.

Mr. Robinson: This is a matter for my right hon. Friends. I am sure that they will take note of what my right hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Minister appreciate that the greatest safeguard that people can have is the apprehension of those responsible for these outrages? Is he aware of the great concern felt in Wales that no one has been apprehended and charged with responsibility for the recent series of outrages? Will he recommend to the Home Secretary that it is now time to call a conference at the highest level of police forces to deal with this matter?

Mr. Robinson: I would recommend the hon. and learned Gentleman to table a Question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Howie: If the water supply of Birmingham can be endangered in this way in the future, does not this add urgency to my right hon. Friend's examination of the Wash Barrage, which might provide an alternative and safer supply of water to such places as Birmingham?

Mr. Robinson: The proposals that Birmingham has in mind at the moment would be an immediate solution to its difficulties.

Sir Knox Cunningham: As certain parts of these pipelines are vulnerable, would it not be wise to take special

security measures over the next few months?

Mr. Robinson: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose— —

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NORTHERN IRELAND (DISTURBANCES, ARMAGH)

Mr. Fitt: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland and the safety of British subjects in that part of the United Kingdom.
Most hon. Members will have read the weekend's Press, in which it is clearly depicted that on Saturday afternoon in Armagh, a city in Northern Ireland, the police forces were unable to cope with a very serious situation. A parade which was organised by the Civil Rights Association——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into details on what he wants to debate if he is granted leave under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Fitt: I believe, Sir, that I have the right to submit why I consider this to be a matter which should be raised in the House.
For a number of weeks now an organisation in Northern Ireland known as the Civil Rights Association had given word to the police authorities in Northern Ireland that it intended to hold a civil rights march in Northern Ireland last Saturday in the City of Armagh. The police had not banned the parade. They had given permission for the parade to take place. They had also given the promise that those taking part in the demonstration would be afforded police protection.
The parade was due to start at half-past two on Saturday afternoon. In the early hours of Saturday morning—at one o'clock or two o'clock—another organisation took over complete control of the city. During the course of the parade


which eventually took place in the afternoon, a county inspector of the Royal Ulster Constabulary spoke to the leaders of the Civil Rights Association and told them very plainly—it has been adequately reported in the Press—that he could not afford the civil rights demonstration the protection which had been promised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He told them that 1,000 demonstrators organised by a person known as Mr. Paisley, who were armed to the teeth, would injure and maim those who were taking part in the civil rights procession.
In these circumstances, I believe that it has been adequately proved that the police— —

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will it be possible for anyone to correct the mis-statements which are being made by the hon. Member?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have more than one point of order at a time. If the hon. Member's application under Standing Order 9 were granted, it would be possible for the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) to correct what he claims are mis-statements.

Captain Orr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you were to grant the application, and a debate under Standing Order No. 9 followed, such a debate would arise on the Adjournment of the House and it would, therefore, not be possible to discuss any matter for which there was not Ministerial responsibility in this House.
Therefore, the matters of which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is giving so tendentious and inflammatory an account would not be debatable in the House, so that what he is seeking to do is a gross abuse of the procedures of the House.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who differ in opinion must rely on Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. Mr. Speaker needs no support in guarding the procedures of the House.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) must put his case in support of his application under Standing Order No. 9 briefly, and must not go into the details of what he seeks to debate.

Mr. Fitt: I thought for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was trying to usurp your function.
I wish briefly to show that a most dangerous situation arose in Armagh on Saturday afternoon and to give the reason for my concern about the safety of British subjects. I shall refer to three members of the British public who are resident in this country. Two of them are employees of the B.B.C. and work in the "Panorama" team. Their names are Mr. John Reynolds, the producer of the "Panorama" programme, and Mr. Richard Kershaw, his associate. These two men were brutally beaten by the police of Northern Ireland and—[interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resist the temptation to make the speech which he would make if I grant him his application under the Standing Order.

Mr. Fitt: I am doing my best to resist it, Mr. Speaker.
Another member of the British public, Mr. Ken Taylor, of I.T.N., was injured by the police. In these circumstances, I say that there was no protection afforded to British subjects in Northern Ireland on Saturday afternoon. This being made abundantly clear, I believe it to be the responsibility of this House to take action under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, which gives ultimate responsibility to this House over all matters, persons, places and things in Northern Ireland.
I respectfully ask that you grant permission for a debate on the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 so that the whole matter may be gone into.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration. namely,
the breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland".


As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors therein set out, but to give no reason for his decision. I have given careful consideration to the representations which the hon. Member for Belfast, West has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the revised Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all recognise that it is not in order, under the Standing Order, for you to give the reasons why you reject an application under Standing Order No. 9. I seek in no way to circumvent that rule, but I ask for your guidance on another aspect of the matter.
There may be many reasons why a matter is excluded from debate under Standing Order No. 9—whether it be specific enough, urgent enough, and so on—but it might be thought by some that in ibis case exclusion came about—this is what would differentiate it from other cases—because of there being no Ministerial responsibility. I raise this point particularly in view of the reference made to it by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) in an earlier intervention.
May we have your assurance, Mr. Speaker, that this matter would not he excluded on that ground, since many of us feel that it is directly a matter for this Parliament to consider? Since the situation of breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland is a continuing one, would it not be open to other Members to raise the question whether citizens can be protected, raising it under Standing Order No. 9 and making their application in a somewhat different form?
In other words, may we have your Ruling in the negative sense, Mr. Speaker, that such an application would not be excluded on the ground that there is no Ministerial responsibility? Many of us insist that the supreme authority in Northern Ireland for the liberties of the people rests with this House just as it does for the protection of citizens in other parts of this country.

Mr. Speaker: I am interested in the point of order which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has

put so seriously to me. He will know that the House decided that, when Mr. Speaker determines that an application shall not be accepted under Standing Order No. 9, he is obliged by the House to give no reasons. The House felt that the moment Mr. Speaker began to give reasons he would begin to create the army of precedents which bound the House over and over again in the past.
The answer to the first part of the point of order raised by the hon. Member, therefore, is that Mr. Speaker may not in any sense give reasons why he does not accept a particular application under Standing Order No. 9.
I cannot rule on any hypothetical applications under the Standing Order which may be made in the future.

Mr. Maudling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on an important point which appears to arise. In submitting his application under the Standing Order, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) made some extremely serious allegations. Had the matter been debated, there would have been a chance to rebut his accusations. As it is not now to be debated, it seems that those accusations will remain unchallenged on the record of the House. Is that right? What can we do about it, Sir?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a difficulty which arises whenever any hon. Member makes an application under Standing Order No. 9 in respect of a matter which he regards as urgent, specific and demanding immediate attention, but on grounds which some other Member or Members do not share. There is nothing the Chair can do about it.

Mr. Orme: Further to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), Mr. Speaker. I believe that all of us on this side would welcome a debate on this important issue. If it is not within your discretion to give time, Mr. Speaker, might not the right hon. Gentleman and his party provide facilities?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter which might be raised on the business question. What we cannot do now is debate on an application under Standing Order No. 9 which I have not granted


that which we should debate if I had granted it. I hope that we may now move on.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have yourself said that this difficulty does arise, and it may well arise in the future. In the circumstances, would it be possible for the matter to be referred to the Procedure Committee with a view to finding a way to deal with a question of this kind? It is of the utmost importance that statements should not be made which cannot be challenged.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Procedure Committee has enough to do at the moment. I hope that we may move on. Usually, when an application is made under Standing Order No. 9 for leave to move the Adjournment, we do not have a long series of points of order afterwards if it is refused. We have the business of the House ahead of us.

Mr. Richard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—which I trust is a genuine point of order. I listened to your Ruling in response to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and I understand that under the Standing Order you are directed not to give reasons for your refusal of an application. However, as I see it, there is no reason why you could not say whether you have or have not jurisdiction to entertain an application.
With respect, what I think my hon. Friend was asking was whether, if there were no Ministerial responsibility, there would by definition be no jurisdiction in your hands to consider an application. Would you make clear to the House, Sir, that in the opinion of the Chair there is jurisdiction to entertain an application in respect of a matter of this kind?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt Mr. Speaker into doing what the House, after many years, now prevents him from doing.

Mr. English: On a point of order. While many hon. Members wish to

debate the issue, we accept the principle of your not giving reasons, Mr. Speaker, but is it not also almost as tendentious for the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was raising something that could not be replied to, when it had already been raised throughout the Press of the United Kingdom over the entire weekend?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for Mr. Speaker to comment on the different opinions on two sides of the House, on this or any other question. Such differences are not an unusual feature of the House of Commons.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), would it be in order to accept a Motion to strike out the untrue statements which have been made in the application of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), if there is no other means of debating them?

Mr. Speaker: It is a most ingenious suggestion. It has happened in history once or twice. It took 30 years to get Wilkes's expulsion removed from the record. I am not prepared to accept a Motion to alter the OFFICIAL REPORT.

BILL PRESENTED

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Bill to amend section 7 of the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967 by increasing the amount up to which the Minister of Technology may assume liability by giving guarantees under the section, presented by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn supported by Mr. Peter Shore, Mr. William Ross, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. William Rodgers, Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu, Dr. Jeremy Bray, and Mr. Gerry Fowler; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

UNDER: DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (AID)

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that our next debate is short. It finishes at seven o'clock. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are keenly interested in the first topic and are anxious to catch my eye. I hope that contributions can be reasonably brief.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the value of the contribution made by voluntary organisations, the work of young people and the Ministry of Overseas Development and its associated organisations in the field of aid to underdeveloped countries; is of the opinion that continued aid to under-developed countries constitutes a vital factor in achieving a stable peaceful world; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to achieve the new target for the transfer of resources adopted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development at New Delhi early this year, as soon as the balance of payments permits.
Since I tabled the subject for debate, the Report of the Estimates Committee on Overseas Aid has been published. As a member of Sub-Committee C, which made the investigation, I do not intend to make much reference to the Report, because the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, is present, and if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will no doubt refer to it. It would be in the normal traditions of courtesy in the House that. I should leave detailed observations on the Report to the hon. Gentleman.
A considerable body of opinion in the country would undoubtedly say that this is a most inopportune moment to raise the subject of aid to other countries, and particularly to call on the Government to achieve the new target set by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development at New Delhi this year. The change of targets for nations from 1 per cent. of net national product to gross national product means a considerable increase in targets, which in Britain's case, I believe, amounts to about 25 per cent
Under present circumstances, it must be some time before Britain achieves its new target, and doing so will depend on

a number of factors that could be outside direct Government control. Even so, Britain's record on the old target is good, and, even relating our performance on the old target in 1967 to the new target set in 1968, we are among the leading Western nations.
The Motion ends with the words:
… as soon as the balance of payments permits".
That is fair enough, but it must not be inferred that a reduction is called for. We must maintain our programme and ensure that our aid, whether voluntary or governmental, is rightly directed, efficiently managed and not used mainly for political considerations. Human need should be the governing factor.
The Ministry of Overseas Development, established in 1964, is doing a first-class job not only in direct Government aid programmes, but in maintaining contact with, and co-ordinating, the work of other bodies—voluntary and commercial. There is a tendency to regard the Ministry as a minor, somewhat Cinderella outfit. Not enough attention is given to its vital work. It is suggested in some quarters that it should be merged with the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Office. This suggestion should be strongly opposed, because such a move would only create suspicion that our aid had political motives alone. There is enough suspicion in the world without adding to it.
Aid to under-developed countries, whether it be on our part nationally or internationally through the United Nations, is essentially a positive and constructive defence contribution to world peace. Extreme poverty and illiteracy, the striving of peoples for the right to live, are factors leading to unrest and violence, leading on to larger powerful nations, motivated by political reasons, lining up one against the other, and then another threat of war faces the world. Is not this an all too familiar picture to us? Situations that have arisen in recent years have pinpointed the fact that the striving for the better life can, unless aided and properly guided, lead to unrest and war.
The world is crazy. Vast sums of money are spent on so-called measures of defence which, if used, can only be negative in terms of human life. Yet in matters to do with aid, so constructive in terms of human life, the enthusiasm is


comparatively mute and the financial contribution limited compared with orthodox defence. To many people, aid to underdeveloped countries means giving money away to foreigners when it is needed at home. I hazard a guess that during the next few days I shall receive quite a number of violent letters—not that that worries me.
Much of Britain's aid is in the form of loans—perhaps too much. Nearly £60 million a year comes back to Britain by way of repayments, although I think that our friends in the Treasury swallow a lot of it. A good proportion of our aid means the supply of goods and services, providing employment in Britain to produce them. Raising the economic standing of under-developed countries means a higher standard of life for their people, and this leads to increased demand for goods and services, to our mutual advantage. Therefore, aid is an investment in our own welfare.
Here in Britain we have an immigration problem. Restrictions have been introduced, and, regrettably, in some quarters explosive speeches made and even repatriation threatened. One might ask: repatriation to what? Why do these people come here? It is simply because of the extremes of poverty and hunger and the lack of opportunity to work and to enable their children to look forward to a reasonable standard of life It is also a fact, well known to many of us, that many immigrants are sending considerable sums of money back to their relatives and families in their home countries.
I am not against families making their own voluntary decisions to take themselves away from another country so as to better themselves. Indeed, many Britons do it. While there is always ready sympathy for political refugees, innocent victims of man's aggression, very little thought appears to be given to the position of what I call economic refugees. A cure is available provided that mankind has the will and unselfishness to concentrate its scientific and economic resources to the problem.
I will give the House my own priorities in aid. They are simply food, education and birth control. Too much attention in world aid is concentrated on prestige projects with a political slant

and not enough on agriculture and the production and storage of food supplies on modern scientific lines. Some two years ago I was fortunate enough to be a member of the British delegation to the C.P.A. Conference at Ottawa, and during the extensive tour prior to the conference some of us went to Nova Scotia, and there at Lunenburg we went into the Oceanographic Institute and saw scientists at work on the development of fish farming in order to provide a hungry world with more protein.
This sort of thing, unfortunately, does not get mentioned enough in the Press. I wonder what is happening to this research and whether enough assistance is being given to what is a perfectly feasible thing which could solve a great deal of the undernourishment in under-developed countries.
In the under-developed countries, too, there is real hunger for education. A little while ago I was privileged, with others from this honourable House, to represent you, Mr. Speaker, by going to Zambia and presenting a Speaker's Chair on your behalf. While we were entertained there, one had time to see one or two little things if one had the eyes and will to do it. One of the things which impressed me most in Zambia was the scheme there for literacy volunteers. Men who worked in the copper mines and other works went off to the villages in the bush when they finished work at night to teach both old and young how to read and write. This hunger for education must be met.
Britain is playing a real part in this field. However, in one aspect I feel that the British Council seems to be working on a shoestring as a sort of poor relation. The need for a greater supply of books is urgent. Valuable work is also being done—we must not overlook it—by the British Council in supplying teachers and help by means of the Voluntary Service Overseas scheme. But I still have the impression that there is a sort of poor relation complex, and this needs greater attention on our part.
I turn to the problem of birth control. Perhaps this is the greatest problem, because the fear of a world population explosion is very real and very great. We must accept the fact that no scheme of birth control can be forced on any one


nation. The request must be made by the nation involved. We must recognise that religious bias exists. Great efforts a-e being made in countries like India, but no scheme of birth control can be effective unless tied to an advance in education. Religious bias apart, ignorance or illiteracy is the greatest handicap to success in this field.
Technical aid is very important if development schemes are to be effective and lasting in their achievements. Britain's record in this field is exceptional), good. Apart from Government schemes and Government aid, the contribution by British industry is invaluable. A great number of workers come to this country for training. I know that there is criticism in this respect. However, I would refer to the development of the heavy electrical factory at Bhopal. There, A.E.I., Manchester, has done a first-class job in training workers in this country and ensuring that the factory is developing along efficient and proper lines. A very significant factor was that the factory was crammed full of British-made equipment.
There is also the Mangla Dam, in Pakistan, a great achievement of British consultants. Also in Pakistan there was a scheme of railway electrification. The British Institute of Transport, the Ministry of Transport and other bodies have sent technical people there, and that is leading to orders for electric locomotives, signalling equipment, lines and the rest. So aid brings trade.
Our own universities, particularly our new red-brick universities, are providing invaluable help in the technical and general education fields through Government and voluntary sources. There is the Government-sponsored Institute of Development Studies, at Sussex University. It was a particular pleasure to me, as representing one of the Norwich seats, to hear praise at Beirut for the work of the University of East Anglia and is voluntary development scheme. We should take note of the work of Professor Ross, from that university, who is doing great work in this field. This work must be encouraged even more.
There are other authorities, too. Britain's local authorities are also doing a good job—but they are not well-publicised—in assisting in the training of people from under-developed countries

in local administration. We must not forget either the work of our staff in this House, the Clerks at the Table and others, who have done such a remarkable job in assisting newly-emerged nations. I would add, as a loyal and regularly paid-up member of the body, a tribute to the work of the C.P.A. and its staff and refer to the wonderful opportunity that we have to get together and exchange our views on problems.
The Overseas Development Corporation has proved to he an effective body, but its field is limited. Serious thought should be given by the Government to extending its powers and field of operation. Commercial development can do a great deal, but I accept that Governmental aid and control at both ends is necessary.
I turn to the question of voluntary aid. The House must realise the tremendous significance which lies behind voluntary activity at home and abroad in that the bulk of the inspiration and work in this field is in the hands of young people. The vision, dedication and personal service is with youth. This is one of the most significant and hopeful signs for tomorrow's world and the world of today. Their target is not the spending of vast sums of money to reach the moon. It is the abolition of world poverty and the establishment of fundamental human rights. In this they are far wiser than some of the older generation.
The Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid and Development co-ordinates the activities of a number of organisations, secular and religious, which in turn, cover the activities of many thousands of young and not-so-young people. I am not able to produce exact figures, but the financial contribution of their efforts total several million pounds annually. I understand that the figure is about, £6 million net.
Personal service also comes into the picture in Voluntary Service Overseas. Some of our best young people are rendering invaluable service abroad. 'This is a service to which all possible help and Governmental assistance must be given. Not only do these young people give practical help, but they acquire valuable experience both for themselves and for others. The nation stands to benefit.
A few weeks ago, some of my Norfolk colleagues and I received a petition at


the City Hall, Norwich, calling for increased aid to developing countries. The signatures were collected during the summer on Norfolk beaches by the Norwich World Poverty Action Group. The final paragraph of the petition read:
While convinced that the abolition of world poverty and the establishment of fundamental human rights can only be brought about by massive international aid effectively administered, we ourselves stand pledged to give whatever we are able for various world services and causes.
That is the voice of today's youth. Its leader, a young and attractive girl, will shortly be carrying out voluntary service in Ceylon. She, among others, is a good example of action following words.
It was, indeed, the action of these young people that inspired my Motion. In my mind's eye as I conclude my remarks is the face of a little Pakistani boy I met at a wayside halt during Sub-Committee's C's tour of investigation. His brother was selling water and he was selling bread. Dressed in simple but ragged shirt and trousers, he had an appeal in his eyes and features. Language barriers were difficult. I did not want to buy his bread, but, as we drove off and he turned to walk back to his village, he turned and, with a beaming smile, stood waving his hand in friendly farewell.
That little lad and millions like him face a life span of short duration and a pitifully bare existence. Surely he has the right to as reasonable a chance of existence and opportunity as our own children. That child's life and the lives of millions of others matter, and this is what the debate is really about. I commend the Motion to the House.

4.13 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) with pleasure, because he has given us this opportunity to discuss overseas aid. I think that he will agree that we have got down to a great deal of hard work, because the topic, which is of great interest to everyone, is also very technical and is not easy to get clear in one's mind.
Another factor I am glad about is that the debate gives an opportunity for publicity. It is not always possible for the proceedings of the Estimates Committee to be discussed, which is perhaps a pity.
I shall not spend much time upon that aspect after what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but, nevertheless, such discussion would be of help to the House in understanding some of the problems. The size of aid is a substantial sum and neither during our discussions in the Estimates Committee nor in this debate do I intend to make a case for or against aid. I shall say what we found out.
The sum of £227 million, which is the amount for the estimates that we studied, is perhaps not the true cost of aid. First, sometimes aid is given—as in the case of Malaysia and Singapore—for special reasons. Secondly, there is a net cost to the country, first, because aid brings advantages of trade, which are very important, and, secondly—this is not generally appreciated, either—there is a repayment of capital and interest during the year which disappears into the maw of the Treasury and about which we hear little. These are things that the public should know. There is a tendency for the public to hear a big figure and believe that it is both the net and the gross figure.
The hon. Member referred to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, which met in Delhi. This is of great importance because there are two types of aid. There is multilateral aid arrived at by agreement between the donor countries to help recipient countries. That amounted last year to £25 million—a very helpful and considerable sum of money. Another course is aid through the International Development Association, to which we have contributed over the years about £59 million, or 12 per cent. of the total. The interesting fact here is that £89 million has been obtained by this country by way of procurements. That means that, for every £1 we have presented, we have received 30s. back. In this respect, I should like to refer to the tremendous enthusiasm of a very great man, the late Sir Andrew Cohen. It was a tragedy that he should have died in the middle of our work. He was always helpful when we asked questions and it was delightful to hear him enthuse about the advantages of multilateral aid.
The hon. Member for Norwich, North referred to the Mangla Dam and how it had provided great opportunity for the


agricultural development of parts of both Pakistan and India which had not previously been used, but which had now become promising agricultural land, especially for small farming. The development of the Indus Basin has completed the work of the Mangla Dam and the question now is whether work should go on on the other dam, the Tarbela Dam, which would also be of great value.
Multilateral aid has one grave disadvantage, which is that there must be agreement among all the countries concerned, and that is not always easy to obtain. We have had this trouble with the United States of America. There is art interesting form of activity known as "pledging"—pledging help in multilateral aid—and it done on the basis of three years or so ahead. In America, however, the figure has to be decided finally by Congress, and if Congress does not agree to the advance the money is not forthcoming. As the American contribution is larger than the others, the effect is that work has to stop until Congress—now a new Congress—decides that the money should be paid. This is a problem, but, generally speaking, multilateral avid has been a very successful method of doing this important work.
Bilateral aid, which is annually a rather larger sum of £121 million, is budgetary aid and is not so satisfactory, but it is essential. Budgetary aid is not satisfactory because it is almost impossible satisfactorily to check the budget of a developing country. The Public Accounts Committee did its best to find out the position and no doubt sorted it out, but generally this is an unsatisfactory method.
However, it is essential, because a country cannot develop without the ordinary administration which every country needs. We subscribe substantial sums in bilateral aid to both India and Pakistan. The Estimates Committee rightly took the view that it is a mistake to have projects which are too large, particularly industrial projects, supported by bilateral aid. We had two examples at the Durgapur Steelworks, for which about £68 million has been advanced. As the latest report is not yet available, it is not possible to say whether that project should be further developed or written off.
We visited the Bhopal heavy electrical plant, where a great deal of help has been obtained from what was Associated Electrical Industries and is now G.E.C. It is not known whether that will be successful, although there were signs of improvement. The Committee felt that, on the whole, bilateral aid for heavy industrial projects was tending to die out and that it should be discouraged.
Substantial amounts are spent on technical aid in training young and older people for work in under-developed countries and on the provision of overseas service aid schemes and the topping up of the salaries of people sent there to work, the topping up including pensions.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation is a valuable organisation. It has developed on a loan basis and has the great advantage that it can work with private enterprise with which it provides a link which is most valuable. To my pleasure, if not my astonishment, I found that it made a profit—that is the nearest I shall get to making a political comment. I hope that the Minister will have something encouraging to say about this body, which is paying its way and doing a very good job at the same time. I hope that it will be extended to India, Pakistan and Ceylon, to which it was not extended by reasons of its charter when it originally started.
We were very impressed with the work of the development division in the Caribbean and the Middle East. The division in the Caribbean was able to spend about £25,000 without applying to home. The reason for this is that many small islands have small projects which are valuable to them, and this is not only an aid but a development organisation. We did not have the good fortune to go there. At one time, we thought that we might, because it would have been cheaper than going to India, but it was not so important as the work in India, where larger amounts were involved.
We saw in the Middle East a very elite body of people, under a very capable headman, who dealt with Middle East problems—and they were many. Arising from that, we gave thought to the question whether the African position would lend itself to a development division. We rather felt that it might be


difficult, because of the considerable distances and the different types of people, but we did think that it ought to be considered.
The final matter was to do with pensions. We found that we had insufficient time to enable us to go into the question of the ordinary pensions of those who serve, and also into the topping-up question. We felt that it might be desirable, although we did not commit ourselves in any way because of the lack of time, for this job to be given to the Department of Health and Social Security. We thought that, subject to the moral basis of the programme, it should be concentrated on those countries which offered the greatest potential market.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) for raising this matter, and I wish to join the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) in praising the late Sir Andrew Cohen, whose remarkable achievements I saw at first hand when I was working in this. and other fields, in West and East Africa.
I have fought seven Parliamentary elections and in each campaign I have stressed the need and importance of aid for the developing countries. Although I have always raised this issue at the elections, I cannot remember ever having had a suggestion that we should contribute less to the poorer countries.
My argument on this has always been twofold. First there is the duty which we as a rich, Christian, country owe to the less fortunate people of the world. Secondly, there is the argument of the enlightened self-interest of a trading nation. The second argument was summarised very neatly today in The Guardian by Mr William Davis, who said:
… aid must not be confused with charity. As a trading nation, Britain cannot afford to brush aside the worries of the developing countries. They are our customers.
The chief manufacturing industries in my constituency are steelmaking and footwear. I summarise my argument, when speaking to my constituents, in this way:
You cannot sell steel products and shoes to people whose standard of living is so

low that they live in a mud hut and go barefoot.
This argument appeals to my constituents, who are go-ahead people and export-minded.
There is an old story in the shoe industry about the two salesmen who went to tropical Africa. One sent back a telegram saying:
Everyone barefoot. No possibility of sales here. Returning at once.
The other one, a Kettering man I am told, sent back a telegram saying:
Everyone barefoot. Excellent opportunities for trade.
The footwear industry is a very great exporter, with £17 million worth of exports last year, and over £15 million during the first nine months of this year.
My first argument was to do with the Christian duty of a rich country towards the less fortunate. We must not forget that by world standards there are plenty of rich countries in Europe. These are more and more recognising the fact that they have a duty to the developing world. In the European Assembly at Strasbourg, in May, 1966, we had a remarkable speech by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. U Thant argued that the problem of economic inequality in the world was now the principal threat to the peace, not only to the peace of the developing countries but to Western Europe. He described Western Europe as being secure in its "prosperous provincialism."
We have had other visiting speakers in the Assembly since then. Inevitably, most of them are European Ministers, but we have had Seneglese, Tunisian, Israeli, and Jordanian Ministers discussing what European countries can do to help in the economic development of these parts of the world, such as Africa and the Middle East. We have not had anyone from Asia yet, but next month the Indian Minister who presided over this year's U.N.C.T.A.D. will be taking part in the debate. We have had the Secretary General of U.N.C.T.A.D.
The Assembly has shown an interest in this matter under three main heads. Development finance is the first, and we debate this every spring. The basis for that debate is the annual survey of development policies prepared by the Development Assistance Committee of O.E.C.D. Apart from this annual debate,


there have been special reports commissioned on questions such as debt burden and the various problems connected with private investment.
In the second place, there has been much interest in international trade among the Members of Parliament meeting at the Assembly—and remember that they represent 16 Parliaments. They have voted for the establishment, by the industrialised countries, of a general nondiscriminatory system of tariff preferences in favour of the developing countries. Although we here naturally tend to think more about Africa and Asia, there is also Latin America, where the prospects are appalling. We have also had speakers from Latin America in the Assembly.
The key problem in all this is the economic inequality between the countries. The problem is no longer as between Europe and Africa or Europe and Asia or Europe and Latin America, but between the industrialised West, of which Europe is only a part, on the one hand, and the developing countries, on the other. This is the basis in which U.N.C.T.A.D. is organised. The institutional forum through which the industrialised countries make their policy inside U.N.C.T.A.D. is O.E.C.D. A few years ago it was thought that our Assembly might become the official debating forum of O.E.C.D. But we are truly European, and O.E.C.D. includes North America and Japan. However, each year we debate the O.E.C.D. Report and in this way Members of Parliament from 16 countries are beginning to influence Western policy in U.N.C.T.A.D.
In this U.N.C.T.A.D. group the countries in the best position to increase their aid significantly, without jeopardising their own balance of payments or prospects of economic credit, are European countries. Until very recently, the European countries which contributed their fair share of development aid were the former colonial Powers. If one examines the O.E.C.D. figures showing the flow of financial resources from the industrialised countries to the developing countries, one sees that Belgium, Britain, France and the Netherlands have contributed substantially more than the average. In the latest figures, Germany has joined the old colonial Powers.
The explanation for this appears to be that the former imperial Powers continue to feel a sense of responsibility—there are other ties between the former colonies and the colonial Powers—even after independence, whereas other European countries which have never had colonies feel no such ties and hitherto have believed that they have no such responsibility. The situation is changing, and these regular debates, very much on the theme of U Thant in his speech in 1966, have played some part in this change. In the long run, it would be most undesirable if European aid programmes continued to be based on past colonial links.
One of the problems today is to get all Europeans to admit that development aid is not just a method of pursuing national political ends, but a common responsibility to be borne by Europe as a whole. In Strasbourg, we are encouraging developing countries to be heard in Europe, becauses any substantial increase in development finance or any significant degree of trade liberalisation by the West is politically dependent on all the industrial countries being prepared to make equal sacrifices. If the smaller European countries, which are sometimes the wealthiest per capita, fail to provide their fair share, this will affect the willingness of the larger countries to increase their aid.
One of the best ways for developing countries to influence Parliamentary and official opinion in the small industrialised European countries must be through European organisations. The Swedish Ambassador in India has written on this and has argued that the main contribution of the smaller European countries—and in this context Sweden is one of the smaller, although extremely rich, European countries—should be through international organisations.
We all know that relations between the West and the developing countries are going through a difficult phase. The West is disillusioned by the apparent ineffectiveness of much of the aid. On the other hand, the developing countries see with dismay the relative stagnation of Western aid and the maintenance of high trade barriers. I detect some cynicism and indifference on one side and bitterness and resentment on the other. There is no easy way to change this, but the worst thing which could happen would be


for us to turn our backs on each other in disgust.
The Decade of Development is one of the greatest tasks of this part of this century. It will require a great deal of co-operation and the existence of strong institutions at regional and world level. The Council of Europe has a modest but valuable rôle to play because, as U Thant reminded us, except for North America and Japan, we are the richest part of the world. Together we are very big and powerful.
Last month, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary attended the International Voluntary Service seminar in Strasbourg and made a remarkable speech on the opening day. I know that he and his right hon. Friend are doing a first-rate job in their Ministry, and I trust that the Ministry will be able to escape the clutches of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which, I am told, is hoping to make an assault on it. I hope that it will manage to resist this, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North argued, aid must be something more than a mere instrument of Government policy.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: Like the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) on choosing this subject for his Motion.
I disagree slightly with one thing which the right hon. Gentleman said. He stated that in, I think, seven election campaigns, he had had no questions about diminishing the amount of overseas aid. He must be very fortunate. Not only do many hon. Members receive such questions, but very frequently this point is made at the tail-end of constituents' letters. I had one this morning, and this is why I remember it. When a constituent raises a legitimate grievance about housing, pensions, or something else, very often the sting in the tail is "why should we send hundreds of millions of pounds to ungrateful foreigners" when certain problems cannot be put right at home.
This is a false judgment which is only too frequently and readily made. Not only is it made by people who, perhaps, have not gone into the question of over

seas aid very fully, but it was made not long ago by Mr. John Davies, the Director-General of the C.B.I., when he described financial aid to developing countries as "an absolute busted flush". We must not lull ourselves into believing that there is widespread enthusiasm in the country for the subject which we are debating.
In further tribute to the hon. Member for Norwich, North, and in support of what I am saying, may I point out that an opinion poll was taken by the Sunday Telegraph earlier this year when the Government were going through one of their series of economic cuts. People were asked what they would like to see cut, and they were given a list of choices. No fewer than 60 per cent. headed the list with overseas aid. Only 10 per cent. opposed cuts in overseas aid. Therefore, I hope that I can dispel a little of the euphoria which has crept into the debate.

Dr. Hugh Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the result of the poll would have been the same if it had been taken among those aged 18 to 21 years?

Mr. Steel: No. The hon. Member for Norwich, North mentioned this matter. One of the hopeful signs among the members of the younger generation is that they are far more broad-minded in matters of this kind.
I have begun with a note of disagreement, but I should like to agree with the concluding remarks of the right hon. Member for Kettering. I hope that the Ministry of Overseas Development will resist any take-over bid by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I was interested to read the comments of the Estimates Committee on the vice-like grip of the Treasury on the work of the Ministry of Overseas Development.
I have raised this point before, in debates on overseas development, but it bears repetition. After the 1964 election, the Prime Minister was able, with justifiable pride, to say that there was now a Minister of Overseas Development in the Cabinet. On the last occasion on which I spoke, there was no Minister of Overseas Development in the Cabinet, and there still is no such Minister in the Cabinet. What is worse, there are today two Treasury Ministers in the Cabinet. We appear to be moving


entirely in the wrong direction. I hope that, if nothing else has the support of the Minister, this point will.
To go on congratulating ourselves about our efforts in overseas aid is all very well up to a point, but we must recognise that, for the first time since 1962, our overseas aid spending this year is down. I very much agreed with an article by Mr. Hugh Stephenson, in The Times of 26th September, when he pointed out that this was not peculiar to this country. Referring to the annual report of the World Bank, he said:
It is a crisis of political will in the developed, western industrialised countries of the world over whether they have the stamina and commitment to see through the job to which they pledged themselves at the start of this Decade of Development. There was a time, and not so long ago, when development aid was 2. moral declaration by the haves' of their responsibility to help the rest tackle the crushing weight of backwardness, poverty and lack of resources.
Some of the initial spark at the start of the Decade of Development has disappeared. There are two appointments which give hope for a recommitment to this endeavour. One is the appointment of Mr. McNamara, President of the World Bank, and the other is the appointment of that distinguished international Liberal, Lester Pearson, as a figure who will head the new committee which is looking into the effectiveness of aid programmes. In particular, I have watched with interest Mr. McNamara's pronouncements on the emphasis on the need to increase the programmes of population control. The fact is that every year our population goes up by 2 or 3 per cent. while food production remains static.
To see this in harsh reality, one must recognise that the income per head of the population of India is now less than it was in 1945, simply because of the "explosion" of population. We are getting ourselves into that vicious circle where the F.A.O. has forecast that we could be in a chronic situation of food famine in only 10 years' time. Therefore, I support very much what the hon. Member for Norwich, North said in opening the debate.
I would like to echo the remarks of those who call for less concentration on prestige projects in development. We all know the weaknesses of politicians in this respect. It is true that the political

leaders in some of the emerging countries have wanted to point to a grandiose scheme such as a steelworks or a motorway where traffic density could not justify such expenditure. I wonder, however, whether the fault has been entirely theirs. I suspect that in one or two cases the fault has been partly that of the donor countries. Because of our programme of bilateral aid, there has been an equal temptation on the part of politicians in the donor countries to say that we in Britain, China or Russia, for example, have given such and such a project in a certain country.
I note with concern that our multilateral aid programme is still only about 10 per cent. of the total. I think that the balance is quite wrong and that, for this reason, we should be increasing, and helping in discussion other countries to increase, the proportion of aid, which we make through multilateral agencies.
An aspect which, so far, has not been raised very fully is the need to reform our international monetary and trading systems so that we do not vitiate our increased financial aid to overseas countries by having sudden drops in the basic commodity prices obtained by the developing countries for their produce. In Ghana, for example, which the right hon. Member for Kettering knows so well, a machine which is used by that country cost in 1953 the equivalent of 10 tons of cocoa, but as the basic commodity price has gone down and the cost of expensive machines has risen, the same machine in 1968 costs nearly 20 tons of cocoa. This is how we spoil, and allow to be spoiled, some of the great efforts which we are pumping into the developing countries.
In his Report from the Estimates Committee, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) pointed out that the paper budget of £205 million, even when one adds to it the special amounts for Singapore and Malaysia, is an exaggerated figure because by the time we receive the repayments of capital and interest from the developing world, our net outgoings are only of the order of £170 million a year.
As we approach Christmas, and our annual period of gluttony in this country, we should set our net outgoings of £170 million a year from the public presentation point of view against one or two


items of expenditure in this country. We should set it, for example, against the fact that last year we spent about £40 million on various forms of slimming preparation. In other words, while so many people in the world live on or below subsistence levels, we spend the equivalent of nearly one-quarter of our total overseas aid budget on efforts to trim our own figures.
During the two years from 1965 to 1967, the total expenditure on alcohol and tobacco in this country rose from £2,843 million to £3,047 million, an increase which, by pure coincidence, is exactly £204 million, almost precisely the same as our total overseas aid budget in a year. These are the kinds of figures which we must repeat over and over again to people in this country so that as we approach Christmas time the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that we are a generous Christian, rich country, giving forth of our goodness, might be more justified.

Mr. John Farr: Is not the increase in the consumption of drink and tobacco which the hon. Member has given largely accounted for by the sharp increases in taxation during those two years?

Mr. Steel: I am not concerned with how it is accounted for. I am saying that that was our total expenditure in this country and I am relating it to the comparatively small amount which we spend each year on overseas aid.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), not only on the manner in which he spoke, but on the terms of his Motion. For once, we are talking about aid to underdeveloped countries without any apology. We are stating what we ought to do positively. The House ought not to run away from this problem and it should not regard overseas aid as a possible item to be trimmed in the future. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) for making that observation about overseas aid.
In our correspondence every day, we get references to the problem of cutting

out something in overseas aid. I go so far as to say that it is not a case of whether we can afford overseas aid. It is a case of whether we can afford to do without it, because the fact is that we cannot. If we start cutting the present figure, we will cause untold misery and suffering in some of these countries overseas. I would even suggest that it might be a good example of enlightened self-interest to think in terms of increasing our aid.
I notice that several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to two possible takeover bids which are going on for the Ministry of Overseas Development, both of which I would dearly like to see us resist. First, I am not particularly happy at the influence which the Treasury has in the Department. Some of the questions that were asked in the Estimates Committee revealed that we were not particularly impressed by the nature of the Treasury's activities.
The other night, I had occasion in this House to raise the problem of the compassionate application of technology to the aged and disabled. The trouble with the Treasury is that it can see only one side of the balance sheet. It is a bit unimaginative in terms of using value analysis. There is a tremendous amount of return which comes to us and it is high time that those of us who have been looking into the problem carefully should go on to the attack and stop apologising for the aid we give.
The second take-over bid which I would like to see the Department and this House resist is the attempt by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to absorb the Ministry of Overseas Development. Aid should be given completely separately and in a completely detached manner without being involved in considerations of foreign policy. Aid is intended, if I may quote from the 1965 White Paper,
to help developing countries in their efforts to raise living standards. Our purpose is therefore to promote social and economic development … The basis of the aid programme is therefore a moral one.
The trouble is that we will find ourselves in difficulty if we have the Treasury, on the one hand, concerned with balancing a budget without thinking or weighing the other consequences, and the Foreign Office, on the other, trying, as it were, to force a policy


upon a reluctant country by threatening to withdraw aid. There are risks which are attendant upon merging the Ministry.
I want to make a plea that we have not done nearly enough work yet to find out what returns we get for the aid we give. I say categorically that the withdrawal of aid would be economically disastrous for this country, and the sooner we face that the better—that the withdrawal of aid would have disastrous consequences for us. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote again. It is the last quotation I shall make, and it is from the White Paper:
The provision of aid is to our long-term economic advantage" —
which is undeniable.
By helping to raise incomes in the developing countries we can provide expanding markets for exports and safeguard the supply of our imports and the return on our investment.
I say to the hard-headed, hard-faced individuals who say that this is all outgoing, look carefully at this side of the balance sheet. The Treasury has got a sort of one-eyed view—a left-hand one; never the right.
The White Paper goes on:
These are real advantages, and we should seek to secure them as far as we can. But they must be secondary to the primary purpose of aid.
The advantage which multilateral aid, as shown by the International Development Association, has for the developing countries are in co-operation and encouraging the highly skilled nations to get together and plan for the benefit of other countries. This is extremely important. Another advantage of multilateral aid is that it is given impartially without prestige projects being taken into account. Careful analysis is made of the aid given.
On the question of the most efficient way of giving aid, it may be argued that it ought to be budgetary aid, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, I, too, am very critical about budgetary aid. It is far too open-ended and ought to be brought to an end, but, while I say that I would add at once that I should like to see an extension of the concept of Kipping aid. Before anyone has any misunderstanding about Kipping aid, I

had better explain that it was a device evolved by Sir Norman Kipping on an investigation which he made in the East, where, he said, sometimes a shortage of foreign exchange meant that the replacement of parts vital to a large undertaking could not be purchased and therefore a large undertaking would be out of action or out of order because of the absence of a small amount of foreign exchange.
The great quality about Kipping aid is that one can be highly selective and can keep going plant and equipment which would otherwise fail; for a small investment we can get a maximum return. I would urge my right hon. Friend to consider most carefully the establishment of a contingency fund with the prime purpose of using it definitely and clearly for the aims advanced by Sir Norman Kipping.
As to the statements that aid is always outwards and always at a net loss, I would point out that a large number of my constituents work at A.E.I. Reference has been made to the heavy electrical industry at Bhopal. When we were at Bhopal we saw equipment supplied by British manufacturers; we saw a part of this country's exports going into India. If we had not supplied that equipment it would not have been a case of A.E.I., at Trafford Park, sending it; the equipment would have been put in by Japan and we would have had a total loss in trade.
These are aspects we have to take into account, and while I would justify further aid exclusively on moral grounds, nevertheless from time to time we have to go on the attack and say that there are very good economic reasons why we should give it.
I do not think that there is anyone in the House at present who would object to the idea of having overseas students in this country to receive technical training and technical assistance. We would say that this is good. I would accept this, but to those who are critical I would suggest that there is an economic fallout by training these people in this country. Thus we can get them used to handling British products and, therefore, potential British exports. Here we have an example of the enlightened self-interest I was talking about.
Another category of technical assistance and advice is in consultancies, and


here we could be doing tremendously more than we are at the present. I think that I can speak for the chairman of our Committee and for its other members when I say that we were very impressed by the standards of British consultancies overseas, although we would have liked to have seen rather more of them. We can say to those who go overseas to do this work that they are doing both very important and highly moral work. It was very pleasant to talk to these people and to feel that they felt they were doing useful work.
There is economic fallout from this work also. If we have our consultants on the spot and our technical experts giving advice, there is a tremendous amount of economic fallout which comes to us by way of the type of goods and materials which they subsequently specify.
Another aspect of technical aid I would mention is that of stimulating, encouraging and extending our voluntary service overseas. The way in which the young of this country are attacked from time to time is quite remarkable, but it is wonderful to see them at work overseas in extremely primitive conditions. Nobody could say for a moment that they go out for the money. They lead rigorous, tough lives in the villages, and it is an extremely heartwarming experience to see them.
There are two benefits from this. It does them good, in the vigour of their lives, to be doing something useful for those in need overseas; but the manner in which they work—the hours they work, the sacrifices they make—has a tremendous effect on the opinions which the people among whom they work have of us. There again, there is a fallout advantage. I am sure that the chairman of the Sub-Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will agree with the great tribute which was paid about the behaviour of our young people by British Council representatives and by the inhabitants of those overseas countries. If those people, in doing what is highly moral work, can, in suggesting technical progress, increase our exports to those countries, so much the better. It is another example of enlightened self-interest.
My final point is this. My hon. Friend said that aid to under-developed coun-

tries constitutes a vital factor in achieving a stable, peaceful world. Reference has been made to the Mangla Dam in the Punjab area, with the five rivers flowing south, which has posed a problem of conflict between Pakistan and India. In the end, Pakistan and India agreed to resolve it, but the catalyst in allowing the peaceful solution to be achieved was money from the World Bank. I wonder whether anyone in the Treasury or in the Foreign Office has ever attempted a value analysis of how much bloodshed and suffering have been avoided, how much foreign currency has been saved and how much more food has been provided because someone, somewhere, had the intelligence and the courage to say, "This area is an area which needs help, and here a small sacrifice by the 'have' nations will bring peace to the 'have nots'."

5.11 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) referred to his fear of a Treasury takeover bid of the Ministry of Overseas Development and said that the withdrawal of aid would be a disaster to this country. I agree, but we must face the questions that are now being asked in our constituencies. Some will say that much of the aid that we give is wasted. I hope that they will listen to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) on that; he made a first-class speech which ought to be widely read.
Others will say that Commonwealth students take their places in our universities at the expense of our sons, nephews or nieces, and that there will not be places for our own people, forgetting that many Commonwealth students in the near future will be going back to administer those developing countries, to be important people there, and they will be people who may be friendly to this country and able to influence trade in our direction.
Others, again, will see the lack of amenities of our Northern cities and complain that we have not enough money to reclaim the Dee, Morecambe Bay, or even The Wash. They will say how much more we could do with some of this money which is being spent on overseas aid, and ask why should we give so much and lend so much which will never be repaid. They will say that if


we did only as much per head as Canada, a country much richer than we are, we would spend about £200 million less, and what a lot we could do with that.
The final argument that we have to answer is that if we improve our industrial base we will in five or six years' time have more money available to lend than now and when we are chivvied by the world at large to play our proper part in the aid programme, we could go back into the consortia.
These questions are being answered in today's debate and we should all be grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the country.
I believe that budgetary aid should be confined to the Colonies that remain to this country. We are trustees for them and we must see that they have priority. Historically, the Commonwealth as a whole must claim the bulk of the balance. Buy: it is as well to remember that we are halfway down the table of aid. We give very much less than France, and I suspect that we may have our priorities wrong.
I would suggest, first, what would be merely a bookkeeping entry. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot touched on pensions to ex-members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service. In the annual budgets of many Commonwealth developing countries pensions to ex-civil servants now living in Britain or other parts of the erstwhile Commonwealth are debated year after year, and local people do not understand why they should pay those pensions. A short time ago the question came up in Tanzania.
How much better it would be if the money which we give to these developing countries were reduced slightly, and we took upon ourselves the charge of looking after these basic pensions, as we do in any case for topping up those pensions. The pensioners would feel more secure.
I know that the Government have always taken over pensions in case of disaster, but pensioners and their widows would feel secure if this were done, and cases would not then arise such as happened in Ceylon, where widows of ex-civil servants are now paid in depreciated rupees. It would mean reducing our aid

at the most by £10½ million, about 5 per cent. of our aid programme.

Sir E. Errington: We were very much concerned about this matter. While we did not make a recommendation, we were anxious that the matter should be gone into fully, to prevent a recurrence of what happened in Tanzania.

Mr. Tilney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at that suggestion.

Mr. Henry Clark: Will my hon. Friend allow me to make one point? He said earlier on that the Ministry always made up pensions when the country defaulted, and he mentioned the case of Ceylon, which was paying in devalued rupees. This is not entirely correct. In the case of Tanzania, we are not making up the pensions, we are making advances to the pensioners in devalued pounds which, if Tanzania were still paying, would be paid in full value pounds because Tanzania has not devalued by a shilling. We are doing our pensioners down by 14 per cent. of their pensions by this second-rate attitude.

Mr. Tilney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that we may have the opportunity later of debating this, possibly on an Adjournment Motion, before Christmas, as there is much to be said about it.
My next point is a plea that private enterprise should be helped in the setting up of jointly-owned factories in developing countries. I would like to see at least 50 per cent. of the shareholding owned by local capitalists, and a quotation on a local stock exchange, with British industry producing the know-how. It is as well to remember that there is a great demand throughout the world for capital, but there is a fear of nationalisation in and the inability to remit profits from many countries in Asia and Africa.
Will the Minister tell us what discussions he is having with countries like the United States, Japan, Germany and others who have produced an insurance scheme of their own? If such a scheme could be introduced, together with a code of investment conduct, more private aid would flow to the developing countries rather than from the British taxpayer. I would refer to the International


Association for the Promotion of Protection of Private Foreign Investments which has its headquarters in Geneva, and which has members from the leading companies in, I think, 16 capital-producing countries.
In a statement on 1st June, 1968, they said:
The importance of the part played by private foreign investment in international commerce and in economic development is generally recognised. For the developing countries such investment and the technical know-how and managerial skills which go with it constitutes an essential condition for the promotion of trade and industry and the steady improvement of their standard of life. These facts were reaffirmed by both the first and second sessions of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in 1964 and 1968".
and, of course, this possible scheme is referred to in the Committee's Report.
The statement also says:
'The World Bank staff prepared in November, 1966, using as basis an O.E.C.D. report of June, 1965, the first draft of Articles of Agreement of an International Investment Insurance Agency".
I stress that this applies only to new investment. It is obviously impossible to insure the old. I suggest that it would be very much better to have an investment consortium for an insurance scheme of this kind so that one capital-producing country could not be played off against another.
My third suggestion is that we should endeavour to help the tourist industry as much as possible in many of these small developing countries. Why cannot there be cheaper air fares whatever I.A.T.A. says? I find that it is far cheaper to have a return fare London—Malta, than a single fare Cyprus—Malta—London. Is it not possible to spend some of our aid programme on subsidising air fares until the traffic is established in some of the developing countries? Just as the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement affects the West Indies and other countries, so the development of tourism would benefit these small developing countries, and also incidentally, our people who would like a holiday in the sun. Possibly the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference might consider this. I understand that some time ago the Secretary-General was deputed to look into the matter.
Finally, let us remember that, despite the population explosion, despite the much greater wealth and greater potential for wealth throughout the Western world, the rich countries are now giving no more than they did as long ago as 1961. The developing countries need help. They need it for project preparation, for the planning of statistics, and for public administration.
Why cannot there be a Commonwealth multilaterial aid scheme, under the auspices of the Secretary-General? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot said, a scheme of this kind does good for Britain as well. We get 30s. out of every £. Such a scheme would be good for the Commonwealth, especially if the experts could have a special tie, or armband, or beret to show that they were Commonwealth Aid contingents. It would bring the nations together, and put some meaning into the Commonwealth. I hope that that, too, might come out of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference.

5.24 p.m.

Dr. Hugh Gray: It is a great pleasure to support my hen. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), especially as he introduced his Motion at the instigation of young people. Although it is obviously not the wish of many of their elders that development aid should be enlarged, I take the view that it is the wish of the majority of young people in this country that it should be. These young people travel much more, and they look on Europe and the world as their country. They do not hold the narrow, nationalist views of their elders. They think in a much larger and more objective way.
I intend to talk about India, because that is the country that I know well. Not only have I visited it on many occasions; I have had the pleasure of living there for more than a year in a rural area.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) suggested that the average wage in India had gone down since 1945. I take issue with the hon. Gentleman because I know that that remark will wound many Indian politicians and civil servants. Many economic experts hold that the indices in India, if one takes such material improvements in rural areas as bicycles,


footwear, villagers drinking tea for the first time, and going into district towns to cinemas, and bearing in mind that this is not a monetised economy—it is in the towns and cities, but not in the rural areas, where people are paid also in kind—the standard of living in India has risen, although it remains extremely low.

Mr. David Steel: I am open to correction by the hon. Gentleman, who has far greater expertise on this matter than I have, but I did not talk about the average wage having fallen. I said that the income per head of the population had fallen, simply because the total income was now being divided among a larger number of people.

Dr. Gray: It is difficult to measure income as it relates to individual members of the population in a non-monetised economy.
I do not wish in any way to contradict the suggestion that the population of India is insufficiently nourished. I remember a doctor friend of mine, who worked in a district town, saying that whereas when he was working in Hampstead the majority of his patients suffered from stress diseases, in the district of Nalgonda they were suffering from nutritional diseases, and this is widespread. But in helping people one has to bear in mind their values. Nobody thinks of sending proteins in the form of meat to vegetarians. One continually hears the suggestion that the Indians should act in a more rational way and kill their cows, but I suggest that before someone makes that suggestion he should look carefully at his own cultural values, which may be quite different.
I remember seeing an Italian film called "Mondo Carne", in which some Chinese people were walking around and choosing dogs from cages. These animals were to be cooked and eaten, in the same way as we might choose trout in certain fish restaurants. This caused a certain amount of horror because people in this country regard dogs and horses in a slightly different light from that in which they regard cows. In India dogs are considered filthy, and most people would not dream of allowing them into their houses. Dogs are kept in the garden or on the verandah. We must always bear in mind other people's values.
There are no religious reasons why the population explosion in India should not be curbed. There are no reasons within Hinduism why pills should not be taken to control pregnancies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, this is where education comes in. If one talks to Indian peasants, they say that the hands of children create more wealth than they consume in food, and it is very difficult to convince these people of the contrary. If one considers the families in which they live, one can understand their difficulties. If they lived, as we do in the West, in nuclear families, it would be easier to calculate the cost of one additional child. If one lives in an extended family or a large joint family it is difficult to do so, and to perceive the cost. Against the possible disadvantages of the joint family one has to count the advantages, such as the fact that it always has a place for old people. Indians ask with astonishment why in this country old people have to go into old people's homes.
I have observed aid programmes from the village level and know what villagers say about them when they arrive. India is a Parliamentary democracy, and I differ with a number of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who have held that aid programmes should be nonpolitical. Western Parliamentary democracies should first of all help other Parliamentary democracies in underdeveloped countries. It is hypocritical to say that there are no political factors in the way that aid is given. What kind of aid programmes have we set up at the moment, for example, for the impoverished regions of China? What have we done for Cuba? It is only natural that we should first help those Parliamentary democracies, such as they are, in Ceylon and India where people can choose between candidates from competing parties, where there is a functioning democracy, where there is a Parliament at the centre, where there are State Governments, and municipalities, and where in 1959 a new system of rural government was introduced in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan.
In my own state of Andhra Pradesh there are councils at village level, councils at intermediate level called Samithis and councils at district level called Zilla Parishads. I mention these because they


are the agencies which are responsible for the administration of development aid programmes.
Among the many transitions that one has witnessed in India since independence has been the transition of power at rural level from the administrators—the civil servants—to the politicians. It is the politicians who are administering these aid programmes. It is true that there have been accusations that this has led to certain kinds of political patronage, but why should we, who have recently heard accusations that the re-creation of the House of Lords would make for political patronage, say anything on that score? Of course there is political patronage. It is a political decision whether a road will pass a certain village, and it is a political decision where a health centre is put. All these things must be taken into consideration when looking at the power structure from both the political and the social viewpoint.
Far too many economic experts, both European and Indian, sit in Delhi, and sit in the State capitals, and talk of aid programmes in terms of practical returns. They think that because it can be demonstrated on paper that something pays people will automatically adopt it, provided there is nothing in their values that runs counter to it. This is not true. We must remember that 90 per cent. of the population of India live in villages, and the rural gentry, the country gentlemen, have emerged from their villages and have taken over not only district government but State Government. They have replaced the lawyers and the urban politicians in the Central and State Governments of India. They have not only material interests but power interests, and it is these power interests that they are determined to retain.
If a man is paying his employees partly in money and partly with goods he is not particularly interested in whether the Japanese method of cultivating rice will give a better crop if it means that the number of his dependants will decrease. If one is to introduce development programmes, one has to decide whether one is first to foster social revolutions, or accept the power structure as one finds it and work within it.
Apart from the rural gentry—the doras, as they are called in Andhra

Pradesh—there are other social strata. There are, for example, the peasants. I remember that at the time of the General Election in 1962 a village peasant said to me: "Who wants roads? I will tell you. Politicians want roads, and our landlord wants a road so that he can run the paddy to the main road on his lorries instead of paying us to take it down to the road by bullock cart." We have to decide whether we are to destroy certain categories of workers by introducing new mechinery in the form of development aids.
All these problems need to be looked at very carefully, but often they have not been looked at very carefully. We know a great deal about what the planning commission decides to do in Delhi, we know a great deal about the aims and objectives of State Governments, but when we get down to village level we see that certain things cannot yet be done until a social revolution takes place. One finds the harijans—the outcasts—living outside nearly every Indian village. That means that if we are to sink new wells, we must give these people separate and equal facilities.
The villages are not yet socially integrated. It is true that industrialisation has introduced certain changes in caste. People eat together in factories, and ride together in buses. But in the rural areas very little has so far changed. People live the whole of their social lives within their castes. They marry within their castes. Intellectuals will tell you that caste has disappeared, but if asked whether they are married within their castes the answer is that they are. The only change is that people are now sometimes marrying within sub-castes of their caste.
These are all difficulties, and I could talk about them for a very long time. I plead with the Minister that in all aid programmes he obtains value for money. Research carried out in Nepal has shown that some of the smaller countries—Israel and Switzerland for example—get better value for money on projects than do the larger countries like the Americans and ourselves, because they establish small projects which they understand. They set up projects that will eventually make money for local employees and provide more food for those living outside. One does not necessarily have to send out


people from the Ministry to make inspections" but one has to be assured that the projects suggested are practicable, not only economically but sociologically. This aspect needs to be much looked at much more seriously.
Not only do the rich get richer and the poor get poorer in all nations, but in an underdeveloped continuent like India the rich villages are becoming richer all the time because they have the men who understand the possibilities and take them up, who send their beasts for improved artificial breeding, and who will try out new varieties of seed. Meanwhile, the poorer villages sink further and further. One therefore has this problem not only from outside but also inside countries.
I hope that in the future we shall look to the views and ideals of the young, not to the old, and that we will increase our aid to under-developed countries, not decrease it.

5.40 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: The Report of the Select Committee is a great tribute to the Ministry of Overseas Development and the improvement it has brought to the management of British aid. But, as I read it, it is also a personal tribute to the late Sir Andrew Cohen of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has spoken so 'warmly.
His imagination had been fired by his day-to-day experience since the war in dealing with the needs of developing countries, and especially the needs of Africa. His experience came not only from the old Colonial Office but from his frequent overseas visits for consultations on the spot, from his experience in the field as Governor of Uganda, and from his work as a representative of Britain in the United Nations. His ideas, his restless energy and his drive in decision-making were all a major force in the development of the Ministry of Overseas Development. I say this having had the privilege of working closely with Andrew Cohen for many years.
What is the picture of aid today? It is primarily one of rapid population growths in developing countries holding back the improvement of standards of living—of the gap between the rich and poor nations growing wider and wider

and, in many developing countries, especially India and Pakistan, of the standards of living of the peasant farmers—the vast majority of the population—hardly moving, with yawning gaps opening up between them and the better-off sections in those countries.
A second feature is the new emphasis being given to the need to improve agriculture. On this there is a growing consensus not only in the developing countries but also in aid-giving developed countries and in all aid-giving agencies.
A third and recent feature is the challenge to the developed world to increase development aid—the challenge issued by the World Bank in the face of growing disillusion about the usefulness of aid. It is a bold challenge, which Mr. McNamara and the World Bank Group have high-lighted by raising in 90 days on the world capital markets more money for development than the bank has raised in any year recently.
I want now to examine some of the suggestions made in the excellent Report of the Select Committee. Here I pay a warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot and his colleagues. As to the Ministry of Overseas Development, one important recommendation was that there should be more decentralisation in the planning and management of aid. There are already two development divisions, one in the Caribbean and the other in Beirut, to cover the Middle East. They have been successful in bringing the planning management of our aid nearer to the countries for whose help it is designed. Will the Minister now consider a similar division to cover Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Malawi and, perhaps, Zambia? I am sure that Britain's aid effort in that frontier area is of vital importance, and that it would bear closer co-ordination on the spot.
In the larger Commonwealth countries in Africa—countries such as Nigeria and Kenya—and in Asia, with India and Pakistan, development programmes are so far-reaching that Britain's contribution requires its own team in each country, under the High Commissioner on the spot. I have recently returned from Kenya and have seen what a great advantage to our aid programme there has resulted from the appointment to the


High Commissioner's staff of an agricultural expert with wide and successful experience elsewhere in Africa. The High Commissioner there has begun to develop an aid team which works closely with the development authorities of the Kenya Government. Projects that the High Commissioner, after consultation with the Kenya Government, commends to Her Majesty's Government are likely to be more practical than schemes which have not gone through such a joint local scrutiny.
I therefore make a plea for the appointment of more agricultural advisers, with experience in the field in the developing countries, to the staffs of High Commissioners and, where appropriate, of ambassadors. This is better than centralising such advice in Whitehall and should be a measure of economy in getting better results from the same volume of aid. This is the more important and urgent because of the new emphasis on agriculture. And I suggest that career diplomats in their posts overseas will benefit from this advice, in which field experience is essential. I know that many of my farming friends in the House agree with this point.
I now turn to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and join in the tributes paid to the Corporation by the Select Committee. It is one of the most effective and sensitive British organisations helping with development overseas It has achieved success in agriculture such as no other organisation in Britain or elsewhere has achieved. This has been recognised for some time by the World Bank. I hope that the Bank, with its new emphasis on agriculture, will make more use of the C.D.C.
The Select Committee recommends that the C.D.C. should now have its field of operations enlarged by the inclusion of India, Pakistan and Ceylon. If it can expand without losing the quality of its effort, well and good, but there is a case for its expanding its efforts in the Caribbean, Africa and the Far East, where it already has successful experience on which to build. There are still vast tasks in these areas which it is suitably equipped to tackle.
If, however, it is to operate in India and Pakistan, I would respectfully disagree with the Select Committee in its

suggestion that the C.D.C.'s main contribution there might be in industry. I suspect that its best contribution would be in agriculture. There, the raising of peasant production in the rural areas has been a major problem, and it is in this matter that the C.D.C. has elsewhere made such unique contributions, in bringing farmers, governments, co-operative societies and private enterprise into fruitful association.
In view of the success of the C.D.C. in helping the developing countries and in doing this while making for Britain a modest profit on its investment, I hope that the Government will now increase the limits of the funds which it can raise as treasury loans or on the open market.
All hon. Members who believe, as I do, that there is in the developing countries an urgent need for increased aid, and who believe that it is in the long term interests of Britain, will welcome Mr. McNamara's recent speech on behalf of the World Bank Group. He has called for an increased effort by all donor countries and has begun to set a brisk example. He is, rightly in my view, putting the emphasis on control of population and increased production in agriculture. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government should aim to increase their efforts in both fields, both in research and in technical assistance.

Mr. Henry Clark: I am rather concerned about the tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks dealing item by item with a number of recommendations made by the Select Committee. I hope that he and the House will not say that this is to be the debate to which the House is entitled on the Select Committee's Report. Will my hon. Friend direct his remarks to the Select Committee's suggestion that we should have an annual White Paper followed by an annual debate for the adequate control of overseas aid?

Sir E. Errington: As I understand it, the position is that the Select Committee's recommendations will be put to the Ministry and that the Ministry will state what it is going to do on the recommendations. One recommendation concerns the point that my hon. Friend has mentioned—the question of the Report—so we shall get that information. Whether


we shall be able to get another debate is another matter, but we shall certainly get the information.

Sir G. Sinclair: I strongly support the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) whose experience in East Africa enables him always to make a valuable contribution to these debates. I should welcome a full-scale debate annually after an annual report on the aid situation, because overseas aid is one of the major responsibilities of Britain in the outside world, and I think that it should be debated by the House, because we are asking for an effort from our own people and they have a right to have it properly discussed and projected.
In conclusion, there is evidence that since the Department of Technical Cooperation was founded by the Tory Government and expanded by the Labour Government into the Ministry of Overseas Development, British overseas aid has been better planned and better managed and has been more effective. I am glad to know that the British National Export Council in its Annual Review for 1967–68 said this on aid:
A good case can be argued for spending even more when we can afford it.
I agree with the Council for the reasons that it has given and other reasons which I have often stated in the House. I strongly disagree with those who call for an end to overseas aid. I believe that this would be a retreat from Britain's responsibilities and a betrayal of the long-term interests of our great trading nation.

5.52 p.m.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: I join hon. Members on both sides in recognising the valuable work of the Ministry of Overseas Development, which I hope hon. Members opposite will agree is one of the great achievements of the Labour Government. It is clear that it is here to stay. I would oppose any watering down of the Ministry by its amalgamation with the Foreign Office.
It is appropriate that during Human Rights Year and at this time of the year we should be concerning ourselves with the two-thirds of the world who will spend Christmas Day in hunger, poverty and sickness, and with no help forthcoming. The objective of the British aid pro-

gramme is to help developing countries in their efforts to raise living standards. How can we do this when in 1965 world food production rose by 1 per cent. but the population increase was 2 per cent.? In 32 years' time the world's population will have doubled. Only Sweden and recently America seem to have recognised the extreme importance of population control.
We on our part seem to be guilty of trying to close the door after the horse has bolted. The problem of over-population is not dealt with only by economic growth but by knowledge of family planning. British aid in population growth and population control is still extremely inadequate. All of the under-developed countries, with the exception of some in Africa, have accepted as their national policy that there must be a policy on population. This has been made clear at the United Nations, so there is no point in our claiming that these countries have not expressed their desire for help. They are anxious to receive help from developed countries in this field.
Last year I attended the United Nations Status of Women Commission as the United Kingdom delegate. I shall be going there again next February. In New York the most stimulating and important debate at the Commission was that on family planning. The women deplored the fact that their countries are ignorant of family planning. The emphasis in the debate was on the fact that this should be available for those who voluntarily want the knowledge. There is no question of its being enforced in any of these countries. Lord Caradon, our representative, is in the forefront of the campaign at the United Nations for population control. I therefore feel that we should have placed far more emphasis in the debate on this aspect and perhaps a little less on the building of dams.
Family planning knowledge must be accepted by individuals and by nations as a fundamental human right. The right to space a family can determine the health, not only of the mother, but of the whole family. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the British Government's response to requests for help in this direction? The requests are increasing. What further measures will be taken, if my right hon. Friend is not satisfied? Will he tell the House of the


progress being made concerning the population bureaux and the setting up of people with experience and knowledge of this subject so that we can send them to the developing countries at their request?
This aid must be given, not only hand in hand with, but to a greater extent than, aid in food production. At the moment there is no prospect of a growth in agricultural production sufficient to accommodate the rising flood of people, quite apart from the moral aspect that every woman wants to give every child born into the world some reasonable expectation of survival and some hope of living in dignity.
It seems hypocritical and unrealistic that the debate has reached this point without anyone having mentioned Biafra. This is an urgent, practical opportunity for the Government to provide desperately needed aid in the form of food, money and medical supplies. Public opinion has been roused by stories of starving Biafra. Unless there is an early cease-fire in Nigeria, a large part of the 7 million Ibo people beseiged in Biafra will die in the next few months. The deaths will occur mainly among children under 10 and pregnant women. Two hundred thousand Ibos died in October and 300,000 in November, mainly from protein deficiency. After next January the death rate will rise even more steeply when the people will also suffer from carbohydrate deficiency.
Let us transfer the well-meaning intentions of this debate into practical deeds. Or are we content simply to send arms there and not aid? One week before Christmas the International Red Cross will suspend its airlift to Biafra for lack of money. It needs £1 million to keep the planes in the air carrying food and medicine.
If this was a political airlift with political consequences, we could be sure that it would be treated with top priority by the British Government. It would rank as an international crisis among the great Powers. Fewer than 12 aircraft have been used in Biafra, but in the Berlin airlift in 1948 supply planes were landing and taking off at the rate of one every 90 seconds round the clock. When Rhodesia cut off Zambia's oil supplies,

the airlift of fuel to Zambia by the R.A.F. cost Britain over £3 million.
What on earth is the point of a Ministry of Overseas Development if it is left to Oxfam and to the Disasters Emergency Committee to launch appeals in the national Press for funds to save the Biafrans? The public have never been so aware as they are today of the problems of the under-developed countries. One week of Christian Aid Week produced £800,000. The apathy which used to exist has been replaced by concern, largely due to the revelations of television, the radio and the Press. The young are more interested than ever. In April this year, the youth movements of the three main political parties combined to launch a campaign for increasing aid and trade to the developing countries. I should like to see more propaganda in sixth forms and among school leavers about the work which they can do overseas.
But money is not always the most effective form of aid. I was recently able to visit Peru, where I attended the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference at Lima. Plainly, in that country skilled experts more than monetary aid are needed, particularly in agriculture and technical education. It is a barren infertile land where the expectation of life is only 49 years.
It is said that we are short of doctors in Britain, but we have one doctor to every 830 people. Europe has more doctors than the rest of the world put together. On the other hand, in Morocco, for instance, there is one doctor to every 10,000 inhabitants.
I urge the Government to provide a far greater proportion of our overseas aid through the United Nations and its agencies. The United Nations can operate more economically in development work than any single national Government can. We all agree that national rivalry, prestige and political propaganda should not, in an ideal world, have a place in aid programmes, but we know that they have. In Uganda, I visited an extremely expensive girls' school provided entirely by America. On all the language machines in large characters one saw the Stars and Stripes and the legend, "This is a present from the United States Government".
Assistance given through the United Nations would free the recipients from


the idea that aid is conscience-money paid by the rich to the poor. Furthermore, so vast are the problems facing the under-developed countries that they can be solved effectively only at an international level.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) will forgive me if I do not follow the tenor of her speech exactly. My time is limited, and I wish to direct attention to a form of aid which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) en passant, namely, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
The Motion refers to aid to underdeveloped countries. In my view, it is often far more valuable and more conducive to self-respect to provide assistance by way of beneficial trade agreements with under-developed countries. This is what the Labour Government did in 1949 and 1950. The Conservative Government followed in 1951, adapting the Labour Government's plans and putting into operation the highly successful Commonwealth Sugar Agreement which has worked effectively now for nearly 20 years.
Many people think that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is a form of untrammelled and generous assistance from this country to the territories which produce the sugar, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Agreement has a two-fold function: the British housewife has the benefit of a certain guaranteed amount of Commonwealth sugar every year, and the Commonwealth producer knows that he can market a certain amount of sugar each year at a reasonable and fair price. The Agreement has worked brilliantly for many years. In 1961 and 1962, the world price of sugar soared to £80 or £90 a ton, yet the Commonwealth producers stood steady by the Agreement and continued to send their sugar to this country at the Agreement price of £43 a ton.
I have given an undertaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who is to wind up from our Front Bench, and I shall not transgress that undertaking. My concluding word is to urge both sides of the House, and the two Front Benches in particular, to remember the vast import-

ance of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. There are difficulties in negotiation now. Let us renew the Agreement. Furthermore, let us think of extending it to other commodities.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I join those who have congratulated the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) on his good fortune in the Ballot, on his wisdom in selecting the important subject of aid and development, and on the manner in which he introduced it in an excellent speech which has led to an interesting and thought-provoking debate.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it may seem to be odd to some that we should be discussing how to give away substantial resources at a time when we are massive borrowers on our own account and are in the grip of serious economic crisis. Is it not a fact, one might ask, that the Americans, far wealthier than ourselves, are cutting their aid to poorer countries? Why should we not stop giving money away to other countries at least until we have repaid our debts?
Precisely because questions like that are being asked, I warmly welcome this debate. For it provides us with an opportunity to examine the whole question of aid, or as I prefer to call it, development assistance, to identify its purpose, to study its effectiveness, and to judge it in relation to the needs of both developed and developing countries alike.
Here, I pay tribute to the thorough and painstaking work of the Estimates Committee, whose admirable Report gives us so much valuable information and clears away so many misconceptions. In this connection, I pay tribute also to the late Sir Andrew Cohen, a great public servant who will be much missed.
True, the Committee was precluded by its terms of reference from pronouncing on aid policy as such. It could not say whether our aid should be increased, reduced or even abolished. It was limited to considering whether the present arrangements fulfilled the avowed purposes of the aid programme. The Committee's conclusion is clear:
… the British aid programme is on the whole well conceived, well administered, and is fufilling its objects. There has been a marked improvement in its effectiveness since


the formation of the Ministry of Overseas Development, and future trends are encouraging.
All of us who follow these matters will endorse those words.
If, therefore, I have some criticisms to offer, it is not because I doubt the wisdom or necessity of a British contribution to development assistance but because there is so much to do at home and abroad with the limited resources at our disposal that we must scrutinise carefully how those resources are used.
The first requirement, surely, is to put the whole human predicament in some sort of perspective. I should be the last to minimise the grave difficulties facing the advanced, developed and relatively wealthy nations of the Western world. Plainly, as we have said on this side many times, it is a precondition of our being able to help the poorer nations, which constitute some two-thirds of the human race, that we put our various houses in order. But I sometimes doubt that there is even a glimmering of understanding of the appalling dangers which will confront mankind if the present gap between rich and poor in the world is allowed to grow wider—and, make no mistake, in relative terms it is growing wider all the time.
In a most interesting speech, the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) spoke of the world's population growth. At present, the total world population is about 3,400 million, half of whom are poor indeed. By the end of the century, if present trends continue, the figure will be nearer £7,000 million. With every year that passes, the world population increases by an amount greater than the whole population of these islands. Within the next 30 years, most probably sooner, the human race must adapt itself to a numerical increase equal to that which has occurred since the beginning of time up to now, or it will face a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions. The world cannot be allowed to drift along without special effort being made to head off that threatened disaster.
I believe profoundly in the truth of Pope Paul's dictum that "development is peace". It is imperative that a sustained and massive effort is made by all the developed nations to accelerate economic growth in the poorer countries

while there is still time in which to do it. In short, the poorer nations are faced with a time-scale the significance of which is not yet fully grasped by the mass of people in developed countries such as ours, where present affluence gives vastly more room for manoeuvre, induces appalling complacency, and tends to obscure the long-term dangers for all mankind.
Now, I am not particularly impressed by the argument as to whether it is our moral duty to provide aid or whether we should consider it only in the light of self-interest. That argument may even frustrate the cause of development. It tells us nothing about what sort of aid is needed, how much, and how it should be channelled and administered. As I have often said, the word "aid", with its overtones of charity, may itself be leading us down the wrong turning. For it does not readily convey the real intention, namely the provision of selective help in promoting economic growth of a kind which in the end benefits both donor and recipient alike, and, through them, the world at large.
I agree with the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) that what is needed is a tar clearer idea of the purposes of aid and the criteria which should be rigorously aplied to both its giving and receiving, instead of the confused argument about whether the motivation should be one of conscience or one of plain self-interest. Why is there such confusion? One reason may be that the United Nations Development Decade was launched without a proper preliminary assessment of the real needs of the situation. As a consequence, methods of giving aid have all too often been haphazard and uncertain. Methods of utilising it have sometimes been wasteful. There has been too little coordination of programmes and projects. There has been an acute shortage of that skilled management which alone can ensure that resources are used to the best advantage. As one hon. Member said, loan terms have been imposed with too little regard to the capcity to repay, and until recently far too little attention has been paid to population control, though it is only fair to observe that the population explosion is caused not merely by a higher birth rate but by a higher survival rate, and there is nothing that we can do about that.
Against that background it is not altogether surprising that a cynical attitude has developed towards aid in the richer countries and a bitterness in the poorer countries which threatens what to many of us has been the most promising development in the post-war world, namely the recognition that the gap between the richer and the poorer nations was unhealthy and dangerous, and should and could be bridged to the advantage of all.
But none of this is an argument against development assistance. Rather is it a complaint about the joint failure in many instances to deploy resources as efficiently as we and other donor nations might have done. Indeed, as the Estimates Committee's Report makes plain, where aid has been properly applied notable results have been achieved. Hitherto, we have heard about the failures; we have taken little note of the successes. Of course, it is true that gross national product per head is rising much faster in the richer countries than in the poorer. The richer countries, on average, added about seven times as much to their income per head last year as the poorer countries did to theirs. But such global comparisons are misleading, because the good performance of some developing countries is offset by the far less successful efforts of a few very large countries where massive population growth tends to offset the benefits of any additional wealth that is created. I shall never forget Mr. Nehru's sad lament to me in 1963, when I led the British Parliamentary Mission to India, that because of the population explosion his country had to run very fast not merely to stand in the same place but to prevent herself from slipping back.
On the other hand, when we look at individual cases we see instances where development assistance has been producing most encouraging results. Within the Commonwealth, Kenya and Pakistan are striking examples. Outside it, Taiwan and, I believe, South Korea have now reached the point of take-off, where they can dispense with foreign aid altogether. As the President of the World Bank said recently, no doubt with such instances in mind,

Let us make no mistake: aid does work; it is not money wasted; it is sound investment.
Obviously there are lessons to be learned from this varying pattern of experience. But what are they? Why is it that some developing countries do better than others? Is it because they are more sensibly governed? Is it because they give more encouragement to the private sector? Is it because they steer clear of prestige projects and concentrate on the less spectacular, but much more vital, task of improving their agriculture'? Is it because they have attracted more multilateral aid, which most authorities seem to think gives more flexibility in planning development programmes? Or is it because—and nobody has mentioned this so far—that some countries have received a greater volume of aid per head than others, which has enabled them to plan more boldly over a longer period?
Is there special significance in the fact that countries like Taiwan, which have received vastly more aid per head than India, have grown faster and have reached the point where they can dispense with aid altogether So far, no authority has tried to find convincing answers to those questions. The Estimates Committee's Report helps to spark our thought in this direction, but so far there are no convincing answers. That is why we should warmly welcome the World Bank's decision to set up its own Commission of Inquiry under the distinguished chairmanship of Mr. Lester Pearson, with a view to examining past aid efforts and devising more effective techniques and policies for the future. But this does not absolve us in the House from the responsibility of evaluating our own aid efforts.
I agree entirely with the suggestion of my hon. Friends the Members for liar-borough (Mr. Farr) and Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) that we should have an annual report. The Estimates Committee was rightly very critical of the lack of clarity in our statistics. For example, in paragraph 12 it says that the gross amount of official aid spent in the current year will be some £227 million. But if' we assume that the amount of money returning in amortisation and interest on past loans will be similar to that for 1966–67, the net cost comes out at £170,


million. Of course, that is on the debit side of our national accounts. Of course, it is money found by the harassed taxpayer; it cannot be conjured up from any other source. But although it is difficult to quantify the benefits, these are considerable, and I shall refer to them later.
Even so, in the sense that aid is a straight transfer of resources from donor to recipient, it is clear that our programme is smaller than it is made out to be. On the other hand, if we are to include the return on loans we should also regard private investment overseas, which performs an indispensable rôle in promoting economic growth, as part of our total effort to speed the economic development of the poorer countries. One cannot have it both ways. Yet as far as I can discover the figure of £227 million is nowhere stated by the Ministry of Overseas Development, and despite the many detailed and helpful statistics that it publishes it is not immediately apparent, for example, how much was spent on the 75 per cent. subsidy to overseas volunteers or on the payment to retired officers of former British colonial territories. We should like to know what those figures are. I put these amounts at £1 million per annum on volunteers and over £12 million on pensions and compensation. I hope that the Minister will confirm or correct these figures when he replies.
Thus the Report is right to recommend that the Ministry should consider ways and means of giving Parliament and the nation more accurate information about the full cost of the annual aid programme, together with an assessment of our commitments for future years. Nevertheless, if I take the sense of the debate, it would be wrong to view the matter purely in budgetary terms. To those who question the wisdom of a country like ours, saddled as it is with a serious burden of short-term indebtedness, having an aid programme of any kind, my answer is that Britain is a net creditor on overall overseas account. Our future prospects are bound up inextricably with the extent to which world trade expands, and it is with the future that aid is predominantly concerned. Essentially, it is concerned with long-term objectives.

Mr. William Molloy: this could apply to the whole of Europe. Europe is a fantastically rich continent. Asia is fantastically poor. Is not the real problem the crazy, barmy international monetary system, which we have not been able to bring under proper control?

Mr. Braine: I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I thought he was going to lead in another direction. Most western European countries have a good record in regard to aid, as good as we have. I thought he was going on to argue that there should be greater international cooperation. There is a great deal already, but not enough. But here I am talking about the case for Britain continuing to make a contribution. Any active economic organisation lends and borrows at the same time, and to the extent, therefore, that loans or even grants are likely to promote future economic growth and future business, these are good investments.
As to future prospects, there are few countries which stand to gain more than Britain from policies designed to raise the living standards of the poorer countries since we do a higher proportion of our international trade with them than is the case with most of our competitors. It is because of this peculiar trading pattern that the bigger and the more widespread the international aid effort, the more the British economy benefits. I understand that, though we are currently providing about 8 per cent. of all aid from Western countries, our share of aid-finance and exports to developing countries is about 13 per cent. Contrary to a widespread belief, the benefit is most marked where untied aid is concerned, particularly in the case of projects financed by the International Development Association.
It is clear then that we, like the developing nations, have a direct interest in the maintenance of a sustained international aid effort. We on this side have supported the Government's policy of pledging renewed assistance to the International Development Association. Unhappily, there still seems to be some doubt about the replenishment of the resources of this worthwhile institution due to uncertainty about the intentions of its principal contributor, the United States. I


say no more about that, but hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say something about it when replying to the debate.
I endorse wholeheartedly the Estimates Committee's recommendation that the scope of the activities of the Commonwealth Development Corporation should be widened. I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) said on that score. Here is a proven instrument of development which gives assurance that resources will be sensibly applied. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us whether the Government propose to implement the recommendation of the Report regarding the Corporation.
There are those who say that what the developing nations need is trade, not aid. Such a phrase has a very respectable ring about it. But in the context of development it is misleading. I will tell the House why. While aid is no substitute for healthy and expanding trade, it does not necessarily perform the same function. If all developed countries were prepared to liberalise their commodity agreements, if we were able to expand such arrangements as the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—I agree very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said about that Agreement—to cover a whole host of commodities, we should not need to attach so much importance to aid. If all developed countries were prepared to abandon subsidies and other forms of protection for their domestic products, this would undoubtedly encourage the exports of developing countries, which would expand their earnings and thus reduce their need for aid. But U.N.C.T.A.D. showed clearly—if anyone had any doubts previously—how far away we are from a sensible trading pattern of that kind. Moreover, the crying need of the developing countries is for infrastructure development and technical assistance now in order to diversify their economic activities, thereby accelerating change and providing the precondition for self-sustaining growth.
Admittedly, the pace of development in these countries will be determined, as it was in our own, by the attitudes, the values, the skills, and the institutions of their people, and in many instances these have to be changed, and changed dras-

tically. That is why aid must embrace not merely economic development but education and training if it is to do the trick in time having regard to the time scale which I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking about aid and trade. But aid and trade are not mutually exclusive. Surely lie will agree that frequently they are complementary.

Mr. Braine: Of course. Aid properly applied in the economic field can do a great deal to improve the trading performance of a country. One must see the two together. I was endeavouring to answer the point that some people make, that what these countries need is more trade, not aid. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman: the two are complementary.
This brings me to a point to which we Conservatives attach great importance. In our view, it is a mistake to draw too sharp a distinction between official aid and private investment. The Estimates Committee's Report emphasised the
vital part which private investment can play".
That is almost an understatement when we consider that the flow of private investment accounted for some 40 per cent. last year of the total flow of financial resources to developing countries.
The Report echoes in this sense what was said by delegate after delegate at the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in the Bahamas in the course of a debate on economic growth in the Commonwealth—that their countries need, and welcome, the idea of more private investment.. I would have wished that the Committee had gone further on this. One can understand, however, that it was hedged in by its terms of reference. But it is no use paying lip-service to the partnership rôle which private investment is playing and can play in many developing countries. Investment overseas must enjoy an atmosphere of mutual trust if that partnership is to flourish.
It is astonishing to me that there should be so much reluctance on the part of the Government to seek to conclude investment-safeguarding agreements with developing countries when so many of our main competitors have done so. More


than 90 such agreements have been concluded since 1958, but Britain has concluded only one. Why? Germany, United States, Japan, Australia, France, Denmark and Norway all provide Government guarantees to their own investors for non-commercial risks. Holland, Sweden and Switzerland have such schemes under consideration. Why not Britain?
I wonder whether this reflects lack of liaison between the Ministry and the Board of Trade or whether it is deliberate policy by the Treasury to discourage private investment overseas. Whatever the reason, it is the Opposition's view—shared, I suspect, by some on the benches opposite—that it is a short-sighted attitude which militates against the best interests of the developing countries.
It is often said that development is about people and by people. We can be proud of the fact that our country provides a very large number of technical experts in developing countries. I have seen them at work all over the world and one cannot fail to recognise their tremendous contribution to development and growth and to the improvement of the quality of life wherever they serve.
On our side we also want to pay warm tribute to the British volunteer programme, to the 1,500 or more young people serving under that programme with such great enthusiasm all over the world. I have seen them in Botswana, Lesotho and Borneo. Everywhere they go they are a credit to our country. They are carrying on that tradition of voluntary social service which is one of the greatest glories of our British way of life.
But we must not rest on our laurels. I understand that some developing countries, whilst grateful for the work done by these young volunteers, nevertheless would prefer to have more qualified people staying for longer periods. That is understandable. I hope, however, that this attitude does not in any way diminish the scope for young people and that the right hon. Gentleman will say something about this.
There should be far more frequent discussion of this subject. This has been a fascinating debate. It has ranged widely. It has been impossible for all

those who wanted to take part to do so. There is a great variety of experience in the House and it should be heard. Surely it is in the interests of all to clear away current misconceptions about aid and to show it as it is—an instrument which can do much to better the lot of the poorer peoples of the world now and which, in the longer term, will benefit all nations. Development assistance, sensibly applied, is as good a recipe as any for making the world a safer and a saner place in which to live.

6.33 p.m.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): Speaking as a Minister who always prefers to be under pressure to do more, I welcome the fact that we have had such a vigorous debate and that so many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have wished to speak and have made such well-informed contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) has joined the small and select band of right hon. and hon. Members who have won first place in the Ballot for Motions and have chosen this subject for debate.
1 claim to be the last but two in that roll of honour, having initiated such a debate in May, 1963. I think that two other hon. Members have fulfilled the same functions since then until today. So I accept the Motion gladly on behalf of the Government and join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend on the way he spoke and on the great sincerity which he displayed.
My hon. Friend has timed his Motion better than I and the other two hon. Members timed theirs, in that this debate is taking place so soon after publication of the Report of the Estimates Committee. Naturally and properly, a great deal of the debate has been about the Report and I want to refer to several aspects of it.
The debate confirms what is said in the last paragraph of the Report, in which the Committee gives enthusiastic endorsement to the aid programme, pointing out that it not only contributes to the development of the recipient countries but also that it considerably benefits this country in terms of good will and trade and that, by helping to bridge the gap between the richer and poorer parts of


the world, it is contributing to stability, which is in the interests of the whole world.
That is a simple truth which all of us in this House at the moment would accept, and there is no need for me to labour it. But it is still not sufficiently widely appreciated in the country as a whole, and it is the job of all of us who share these views to proclaim them to our fellow citizens as vigorously as we can.

Sir G. Sinclair: It is important that the public should be correctly informed. I do not believe, however, that these efforts are leading to a bridging of the gap but that they are stopping the gap from widening faster and further. We must recognise this fact.

Mr. Prentice: I think that that is a fair correction of what the Estimates Committee and I have said, but my intention—and, I assume, that of the Committee—was to suggest that, if the gap were allowed to widen without an attempt to bridge it, the prospects for world stability and world peace would be very grim indeed.
The Motion is not controversial in any sense and I welcome what my hon. Friend states in it about the rôle of the voluntary organisations and the work of young people. One of the most encouraging things l have seen in the fairly short period in which I have been Minister of Overseas Development is the clear evidence or increase of interest and activity in the subject. The meetings which are held throughout the country—in universities, by the councils of churches and by various voluntary bodies—are getting larger and more enthusiastic attendances than even a year ago. This is something which all of us who believe in aid will welcome.
There is growing support for organisations already well established, such as Christian Aid, Oxfam, War on Want and others. There is also the growth of new bodies—the local World Poverty Action Groups and a number of bodies of young people such as "Unfed", "Youth Against Hunger", the "Haslemere Group" and "Young Abolitionists". Many of them are restless and impatient, quite naturally, and they all have an enthusiasm which I welcome. Many of the best of our citizens, compassionate and humane, are

working for this cause and their ranks include a growing number of young people.
The other part of the Motion to which I want to refer is the reference to the new U.N.C.T.A.D. target. My hon. Friend does well to remind us of that target. As he has said, compared with the old target it is a shift from working to 1 per cent. on a basis of national income to that of the basis of gross national product, which has raised the target for us and for others by about one-quarter, so that we and other nations which fulfilled the 1 per cent. target under the old definition for some years are now failing to fulfil the target under the new definition.
As far as one can work it out, in the present year we are likely to achieve 0·8 per cent. But it is difficult to work this out because such things as the details of the private flow of capital do not come in until later. I can only repeat what I have said before—that I cannot be specific about the year in which we shall fulfil the new target. It depends upon the progress we make in dealing with the balance of payments problem, and this was recognised at New Delhi when we committed ourselves to using our best endeavours to reach the new target as soon as economic circumstances permitted. This is a commitment of this country and other countries which are not now reaching the target.
It is because there is this degree of uncertainty about the future performance of aid donors generally, not just Britain, that I support those who have welcomed the appointment of a commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Lester Pearson. I had the privilege of meeting him a fortnight ago and listening to some of his ideas on this subject, and I found it a most refreshing experience. There is now a case, for reasons given by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), for a stringent stocktaking by an independent commission looking at the performance to date, at the success stories and the failures and the reasons for the successes and the failures, and then drawing from that experience lessons to guide the nations in the years ahead. I should like to take the opportunity to say how much I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) is to be a member of that commission.
I think that the whole House would like to congratulate the Sub-Committee on its work. It held many meetings and listened to a great deal of evidence which, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) properly pointed out, was technical and complicated. The members of the Sub-Committee undertook an arduous journey at what in the countries they visited was the hottest time of the year, and they did a remarkable job. The details of their recommendations are being most closely and urgently studied within my Department, and we shall comment on them in detail in the usual way by presenting a White Paper in due course.
May I also join those who have paid tribute to the late Sir Andrew Cohen? Anyone who reads not merely the Select Committee's Report but the evidence which it took, particularly in the early stages, will read the views of Sir Andrew on so many of the matters which were raised. They gave fresh evidence, if we needed it, of his great clarity of mind and his great dedication in this subject. He was one of the most outstanding public servants whom this country had in the post-war period. He made a tremendous impact on our colonial policy in Africa some years ago, and in recent years on the formation and development of the Ministry of Overseas Development.
Perhaps I may say that the Ministry comes well out of the Report. There are criticisms, as one would expect, and I want to mention some, but the Report concludes that the formation of the Ministry has been helpful to the administration of overseas aid and has improved our performance in terms of getting the maximum value for the money spent—I mean value in terms of actual development on the ground. It is a conclusion which I am naturally glad to have on the record, and I think that it is an important conclusion. May I say to those who have expressed fears about take-over bids that I face the future with reasonable self-confidence? Hon. Members will have noted the recent reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on this subject. The Ministry is certainly to continue in its present form.
I turn now to some of the points raised in the Report and also mentioned in the

debate. I apologise in advance to hon. Members who have raised matters which I do not cover. I accept that in the presentation of statistics there is an element of confusion, but there is almost bound to be. There are a number of different elements all of which have to be mentioned. We have spoken constantly of the basic aid programme of £205 million, which was the figure for last year, for the current year and for the ensuing year. However, the Committee drew attention to the fact that other items have been added.
One of the difficulties about translating that into an overall figure is that it is difficult precisely to gauge the timing of these extra items. For instance, the migratory aid to Malaysia and Singapore, which, of course, is related to the military withdrawal from the area, totals £75 million to the two countries, but the aid is to be committed over a period of five years, and in practice it will probably be spent over a period of rather more than five years. The programmes are being discussed with the two Governments concerned and certain decisions have been made and certain money is beginning to flow, but it is difficult to allocate it to annual amounts.
In a way, it is more accurate to speak, as we still tend to speak, of the £205 million programme with these certain additional items. I told the House in July that I thought that the total for the current financial year would be about £225 million, but I now think that the total will be rather less than that because of the delay in ratifying the I.D.A. agreement. I should not like to put a precise figure on this at the moment, although it is still true that we have this basic programme plus additional items.

Sir E. Errington: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the concept of pledging, which is very important, requires explanation in some form of pamphlet?

Mr. Prentice: I am anxious to see that the House and the public get as clear an explanation of the situation as possible. I am suggesting that whatever figure is taken as being the aid programme, there are inevitably qualifications to be made of one sort or another about the precise total.
Hon. Members have mentioned the return flow of capital and interest of development loans, now totalling about £60 million a year. This should certainly be seen as part of the total picture. For the normal reasons of public accounting, we do not present Estimates in the form of a net figure in cases like this. The gross figure of payment out appears, and payments back appear elsewhere. We have to accept that there are reasons for that, but certainly it should clearly be understood by those who study these matters that the return flow is an important part of the picture.
A number of hon. Members have spoken of the importance of multilateral aid and have asked for greater emphasis to be given to this form of aid. That is very much my own policy and that of the Department. I agree that the percentage should rise, but it should rise by stages. It would be a mistake to over-load the capacity of the various multilateral agencies all at once. It is a matter of getting greater emphasis and a greater proportion into multilateral aid year by year, and in recent months we have taken a number of decisions to that end. We have played a part in getting a higher commitment to I.D.A., a commitment for the three-year period 60 per cent. above the old figure, and Britain was prepared to go to a still higher figure if other countries had agreed.
We have recently increased our pledge to the United Nations development programme and to a number of smaller programmes. Last year, the proportion of our aid going in multilateral form was about 11 per cent. and this year it would be 15 per cent. if the I.D.A. Agreement had taken full effect as we planned. I cannot give the figure now, because there is some uncertainty, to which I shall refer, but it is a shift by a policy decision from 11 per cent. to 15 per cent. in the form of multilateral aid.
I welcome what has been said about the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which was mentioned particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, the hon. Member for Aldershot and the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G Sinclair). I agree that it is desirable that the Corporation should be able to engage in activities in a wider list of countries. The Report suggests that it should be active in India, Pakistan and

Ceylon. My only reservation about that is that if it is to have any major impact in countries of that size, it would need much larger additions to its capital than will be possible in the next year or two. What we are thinking of is a more immediate line of progress which might be possible if its activities spilled into countries adjacent to countries where it is already active.
I can tell the House that legislation is under consideration. At the moment I cannot say more than that; I cannot give a date. However, the legislation is under consideration and it is intended to extend the powers of the C.D.C. to operate in other countries. I will keep the House informed on progress. Incidentally, the allocation of C.D.C. is up this year. It was slightly over £9 million last year, and is £10 million this year, which shows again the importance of this aid, despite the overall ceiling.
I agree very much with those who have spoken about the importance of agricultural development. We are already giving more emphasis here. We must remember that in all our aid programmes we are engaged in helping countries to pursue their own economic development, and most of the countries concerned are self-governing. Therefore, on a government-to-government basis what we do has to dovetail in with their development plans.
What has been happening over the last year or two is that developing countries, donor countries and the multilateral agencies are all trying to put a greater emphasis on agricultural production and on rural development as against urban development. This is a very wide generalisation, and the needs of each developing country are separate. I would not want to condemn industrial development in all cases. We are engaged in a race between resources and population, and the only thing that I would say today is that while there is no room for complacency, equally there is no room for despair.
Statistics of food production in recent years show a growth which is a hit ahead of population growth. I do not say that in any way complacently, but merely to show that we must not allow ourselves to get into a state of despair about the future. We now know a great deal more


about the ways in which agricultural production can be increased. There is now no technical barrier to a much faster rate of growth of agricultural production than we are now seeing. New types of seed have been developed in certain areas for wheat, rice and maize which offer great opportunities, provided they are combined with good husbandry, fertilisers, water supplies and proper market opportunities. All these things are needed in order to get the sort of break-through in agriculture. There is reason to be hopeful about the future, although no reason whatever for complacency.
I welcome what the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) said about family planning. If she asked me whether I am satisfied that we are doing enough here I should say that I am not. We are doing rather more than many other countries to bring this subject on to the international agenda. She has mentioned the work carried on at the United Nations by Lord Caradon. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who led the delegation to the Commonwealth Medical Conference in the summer, also made sure that this matter was discussed. As she knows, we have recently established a Population Bureau within my Department, to be the centre of our knowledge on this, and to give advice, and to try and find ways of improving our help in this important subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) mentioned the importance of consultancies and feasibility studies. May I give the House some figures to show the importance that we attach to this. In 1964–65 we were spending £260,000 on aid in this form. Last year it reached £600,000, and this year it will be more than £1 million. We are putting great emphasis on this, partly because we now see quite clearly that this is a very effective form of technical assistance for the developing countries, and partly because there is often a commercial advantage to be gained indirectly as a result. We are in close touch with the Board of Trade, following up Lord Cromer's recommendations. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East asked me about the latest position on the replenishment of I.D.A. As he knows, the agreement does not become effective until

sufficient countries have ratified it; the United States Congress, the last Congress, did not ratify it, and we will look forward to action being taken on this by the new Congress in the new year. Meanwhile, the President of the World Bank has made certain proposals for the interim replenishment of I.D.A. so that it has some funds with which to carry on.
Canada, Sweden, and Italy have recently responded to this and have pledged part of their share of the replenishment that would have been due under the agreement. I can tell the House that this matter is now receiving the urgent and sympathetic consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I cannot announce a decision today, but it is being considered very urgently. It is also being considered in many other donor countries. The House will appreciate that this is a matter in which, if it is to work effectively, a number of countries ought to be expected to come forward, not merely Britain.
I very much agree with the reference made to the importance of our technical assistance effort generally, and of the volunteer programme in particular. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East said that he understood that there was a demand in the developing countries for a large number of qualified volunteers and that volunteers should serve for a longer period. The British volunteer programme is working along these lines and proportions are changing from year to year.
In this respect, it is obviously important that those who go as volunteers should have something to contribute of direct value to the country concerned. The younger and unqualified ones have something to contribute, but clearly if a larger proportion had qualifications, then even greater value is obtained from this programme. This shift of emphasis is taking place. I can tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) that we are studying what was said at Question Time recently about the importance to private investment, and particularly what was said about investment guarantees.
There is no lack of liaison between O.D.M. and the other Departments on this, and we are having discussions with them. It is fair to point out—and this is not simply a Treasury point but one


which we should all recognise—that it is difficult, at this particular moment, for the British Government to encourage an increase in private investment overseas. The importance of the developing countries has been recognised in the sense that the measures taken by the Chancellor and his predecessor on private investment overseas have not been applied to developing countries within the Commonwealth.
It is very difficult at this moment to take steps that will lead to increased private investment in the immediate future. Nevertheless, this is a matter which we are studying and not only in this country. We are taking part in the World Bank consultations designed to produce a scheme for an international investments guarantee plan.
There are many other aspects of this problem on which I would have liked to have spoken. I have been torn tonight between my duty to give a full report and my duty not to take up too much time because other hon. Members want to speak. May I express the hope that hen. Members on both sides who have shown such an active interest this afternoon will follow this up at Question Time, and in whatever other way can be devised for debate, because I certainly share the wish that this subject should be frequently debated in the House. In the not too distant future this subject will have to come much more into the centre of the political stage.
It is not a subject that normally hits the headlines, but it is one of the really vital subjects of our time. It is part of the process of achieving a civilised relationship between the richer and poorer countries of the world. This civilised relationship has to include efforts by us to help the developing countries to help themselves. We have to see this not just as a temporary charity but as a permanent and essential part of our overseas policy.

Mr. Braine: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, can he say what

he intends to do about the recommendation that his Department should produce an annual report?

Mr. Prentice: My decision on this will come out with the White Paper, which I promised the House, on all the recommendations of the Select Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises the value of the contribution made by voluntary organisations, the work of young people and the Ministry of Overseas Development and its associated organisations in the field of aid to under-developed countries; is of the opinion that continued aid to under-developed countries constitutes a vital factor in achieving a stable peaceful world; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to achieve the new target for the transfer of resources adopted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development at New Delhi early this year, as soon as the balance of payments permits.

BAROTSELAND AGREEMENT

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the unilateral repudiation by the Government of Zambia of the Barotseland Agreement 1964 (Command Paper No. 2366), which was signed by Her Majesty's Secretary of State, by Dr. Kaunda and by the late Litunga of Barotseland, and was, further, reinforced by solemn assurances.
The Barotseland Agreement was concluded on 18th May, 1965, and broken 14 months later, but I thought it right to say nothing very much in the House about it until the death of the Litunga a fortnight ago made it certain that nothing which I said would damage his position. It happened that in a professional capacity I negotiated the Barotseland Agreement on behalf——

It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings cm the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government business).

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (SOCIAL NEED) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is intended to carry out the undertaking given by the Government on 22nd July to deal with the problems of some urban areas of acute social need. It arose as a result of a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Birmingham some months ago, and I believe that it will have some impact on the problem which we have to face in the kind of areas to which the Bill is directed.
There are substantial programmes now in these areas. The two major factors of policy are the Plowden Committee's recommendations which are being carried out in education, namely, a £16 million school building programme which is authorised for the years 1968–70 with the aim of meeting the educational needs of socially deprived districts; and the large local authority house building programme which will continue to give priority to slum clearance and to eliminating shortages, especially in rented accommodation. These are two large programmes and we are adding to them this third programme to try to meet some special aspects of urban need which in themselves have created social problems.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the care of our citizens who live in the poorest or most overcrowded parts of our cities and towns. It is intended to arrest, insofar as it is possible by financial means, and reverse the downward spiral which afflicts so many of these areas. There is a deadly quagmire of need and apathy. Those of us in public life, whether as Members of Parliament or councillors, know better than most, and with respect, better than most of our fellow citizens, the kind of areas to which the Bill is directed. I think that we have all seen in our public life the way in which unmet needs, when they are felt by citizens incapable of matching the

requirements of the situation, create apathy and the apathy then gives rise to further needs which are not met.
The Bill is an expression of the concern which the Government and, I believe, the House feel for these areas and the people living in them and it is an attempt to inject some financial help through the local authorities to achieve the purpose of bringing areas of this kind nearer to the general levels of our cities and towns. These areas may or may not contain concentrations of immigrants; it depends on whether the criteria which have been laid down have been met. It would be wrong to assume that all areas in which immigrants are concentrated represent areas of acute social need. There are many areas with citizens who were born and have lived in this country for many years which have the same social needs.
Therefore, we have not hit upon this programme as a means of dealing with any aspect in particular of the problem caused by the inflow of immigrants. It is a programme designed to meet the needs of the poorest, whatever their colour. They are all citizens of this country.
This is to be a programme of local authority expenditure, and that is why I attach the utmost importance to the discussions which have begun with the local authority associations in which we shall consider the detailed financial arrangements and the selection of areas to benefit from the programme. The Bill, which is very short, will provide for a new specific grant. This is a technical term. It means that the general level of expenditure will not all be wrapped up and submerged in the rate support grant, but local authorities will be able to claim specifically in respect of expenditure which they undertake as a result of the Bill.
The Bill will not solve all the problems or the multi-deprivation in our cities. Nor is it a once-for-all operation. On the contrary, it is a continuing operation. As we see it centrally, the areas of social need are comparatively small pockets within local authority areas. They may represent whole wards; they may represent a group of streets. They need not necessarily represent the whole of the borough. It will be for the local


authorities, in conjunction with the Home Office, to identify the areas concerned.
Clause 1 refers to special social need existing in certain urban areas, but in effect it is left to the Secretary of State to determine whether special social need exists. The areas which we shall be discussing with the local authorities usually bear the marks of deprivation in a number of ways. It can show itself by way of notable deficiencies, especially in housing, over-crowding of houses, persistent unemployment, and a high proportion of children in trouble or in need of care. A combination of these and other factors enables all of us to recognise the kind of area with which the Bill is intended to deal.
A substantial degree of immigrant settlement may also be an important factor, although not the determining factor, nor the only factor, in deciding the existence of special social need.

Mr. Charles Mapp: My right hon. Friend said that possibly areas in an authority may qualify, and he included wards. Would he elaborate on that? I have in mind a ward of 5,000 or 6,000 in a town of 110,000 people. Would the authority qualify for loan in respect of that ward?

Mr. Callaghan: It would certainly have to qualify at the present time in relation to the whole area. But it might want to devote the expenditure to a small area, and to put forward bids to this end. That was the purpose of what I said. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is associated with the Bill, and I a re not thinking of permanently designating geographical areas as areas of special social need. We are concerned, in the initial stages at any rate, to proceed by the more flexible method of laying down criteria of need and then asking the local authorities which consider that such need exists in their area to submit proposals designed to improve the areas and then decide whether aid should be given. The Bill, which is flexibly designed, enables us to provide a framework for a process of this kind. Fundamentally, the process will be one of bidding by the local authorities, who should, and do, know their own areas of difficulty, and then consideration by the central Departments.
This seems to me to be a field in which we might, over a period of years, if this is to be a continuing programme, try to get a more objective assessment of comparative need, as distinct from bidding. I hope, therefore, in conjunction with the Bill, to work on ideas for making use of statistics to enable us to corroborate the selection and comparison of areas. Already we are making plans for some computer-based experiments so that we can try, in due course, to get a more objective assessment rather than the simple process of bidding.
I do not think that I should say more about that at the moment because, although the work is advanced, it is not in a state where I can give a detailed assessment. I feel that in all these matters of government, as, I think, the House would agree, we should endeavour to get as objective an assessment as we can instead of relying on hunches or, indeed, the articulate nature of some of the local authority representatives.

Sir Edward Boyle: I seem to recall that a certain amount of assessment of this kind was done by the Department of Education, when preparing for the Plowden exercise, for the money to be allocated for the priority areas. Will the Home Secretary undertake that the experience and views in that connection will be taken into account when the objective criteria are worked out under the new scheme?

Mr. Callaghan: That is not a difficult undertaking to give. It is elementary common sense that we will take into account what is being done by the Department of Education and Science. There is, as the right hon. Gentleman may recall, some communication between Departments and we will, of course, make full use of the information which they have got in this matter.
I have carefully considered what percentage rate should be applied to the new grant. Under the Bill, this is a matter for determination by the Home Secretary. As the House will know, the majority of specific grants are for 50 percent. of the expenditure involved. Taking into account the need for the programme to be quickly effective and the need for co-operation between the local authorities and central Government, my officials have proposed to the local authority


associations that we should increase that rate of specific grant from 50 per cent. We propose exceptionally that grants should be paid on all programme expenditure at the rate of 75 per cent. and not 50 per cent. I hope that local authorities will regard this as an earnest of the importance which the Government attach to the programme.
At the same time, the Government have considered representations which they have received from the authorities which qualify for the payment of specific grant under Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1966. This allows grant to be paid towards the cost of staff employed by local authorities which have to make special provision for carrying out their functions because of the presence of immigrants whose language and customs differ from those of the rest of the community.
The Government have decided, in the case of this grant also, that they will be justified in paying grant in future at the rate of 75 per cent. and the rate will, accordingly, be increased from 50 per cent. as from 1st April next. This has been put to the local authority associations and I understand their preliminary view to be that the programme grant should be 100 per cent.—in other words, that the Government should pay the whole sum.
There are no set principles in this matter. It is true to say, as the local authority associations say, that there is a strong national interest in the development of the urban programme. That, indeed, is why the Government have decided on the exceptionally high figure of 75 per cent. There is, however, a local as well as a national interest in the programme. I agree that where the local authority pays 25 per cent. of the cost and receives the remainder by way of grant, there may be an additional call on the rates. Although the total overall sums to be expended on the programme are not much compared with, say total expenditure on education or the like, they will, by the very nature of the programme be expended by comparatively few authorities.
The whole point of this programme is that we have here an exceptional and a local need, and I do not find it out of

accord with the balance that should exist between the responsibilities of local authorities and those of the Government that 25 per cent. contribution should be made by the local authorities. I feel that the removal of all financial sanction in this matter would not be conducive to the best control of our financial affairs. I hope that, when they have reflected upon it, local authorities will see it in this way.
Certainly, I am glad to say that there has been no lack of willingness on the part of the 34 local authorities which I asked to submit proposals for the initial phase of the programme to put their proposals forward. I must, however, conclude that I do not find it easy to see how a case could be made for 100 per cent. Exchequer grant in aid of the programme. The Government have gone a substantial way by recognising that the normal specific grant of 50 per cent. is not enough and by putting it up to 75 per cent. we propose to give local authorities substantial help while giving them a financial stake in ensuring that the programme is carried out efficiently and economically.
I also propose to take into account the views of local authorities on the kind of project which is most likely to bring help to the districts which we have in mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science alluded, during the debate on the Address, to the fact that, in the initial phase of the programme, we have concentrated on nursery education and thereby made almost the first real move in that important sector for a good many years. I hope that we shall also be able to pioneer with different kinds of facilities that might be particularly adapted to those areas. I think of such things as family advice centres, play groups and the training in service of teachers to equip them for the difficult job of teaching in areas of special social need. These are matters which I shall certainly discuss with the local authorities and I will readily consider any ideas which they may have and which they want to bring forward to help us to carry out the programme.
I should like at this stage to pay my tribute to the host of workers in these areas who are, perhaps, employed by local authorities—teachers, welfare officers and child care officers, for example—who spend their time in these areas. If


I may be permitted a personal recollection, I find it most refreshing, stimulating and encouraging to see the way in which teachers in these areas, and other local authority officers, are unstinting in their enthusiasm and zest and in the zeal with which they care for humanity and the manner in which they carry out their jobs.
To me, one of the most refreshing parts of the Recess is when I can spend a day or two going round that kind of area and seeing the enthusiasm which teachers and others lavish on the children in their care and on those who need it. I am sure that all of us in the House would like to pay our tribute to them. Insufficient is known about the tremendously high degree of, I will not say social conscience, but social civic sense, that our teachers and others have in this direction.
As I told the House in November I, with my Ministerial colleagues, invited proposals from 34 local authorities in whose areas it seemed clear that urban need existed. I expect to approve expenditure of up to £3 million on building projects up to the end of the year 1969–70, together with an additional sum towards running costs. As I have said, expenditure will be concentrated upon nursery schools, day nurseries and children's homes. I am glad to tell the House, whose authority I asked before I sent out the circular which was issued, that the response from local authorities has been most encouraging. Indeed, there will probably be considerably more applications than can be met at this stage of the programme. We shall do our best within the overall limits to see that what is not dealt with immediately will be picked up at a later stage of the programme.
What I have asked is that approval should be given to these projects as soon as possible without attempting to forecast exactly how the approvals under the circular may turn out, but I think it would be a fair estimate—and I should like to give the House these figures—that in education it should be possible to provide some 150 additional nursery classes; that in the field of health, about three times as many day nursery schemes may be approved as would have received approval under the existing programmes;

and that in child care another 200 to 300 extra places could be provided in children's homes. That will be in the initial stage of the programme.
A similar advance programme has been authorised in Scotland. These are advance programmes.
I hope the House will agree—and this is the reason for the reference to the year 1968–69 in Clause 1(2)—to these proposals to pay grant retrospectively to the authorities concerned in the initial phase of the programme. There will be new nursery provision on the ground as the result of this.
It will have been clear from what I have said that there will have to be a definite ceiling of expenditure of £20 million to £25 million. That is the estimated total sum the Government are making available in this way. This we expect to incur during the first four years of the programme.
I, for my part, am suggesting to the local authorities—I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to work along similar lines—that very nearly £6 million should be allocated to the remainder of this financial year and to the year 1969–70. I hope very shortly to issue a second circular containing arrangements for bringing expenditure in 1969–70 up to this total. So we expect, up to April, 1970, to be able to sanction some £6 million, and the remainder of the £20 million to £25 million programme will be kept for the two years following.
I have spent some time on the programme which this Bill is designed to help so that the House may understand to what practical end the machinery of the Bill is directed. Clause 1 provides for specific grant to be paid to local authorities in Britain on account of expenditure which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, is incurred by them by reason of the existence, in any urban area, of special social need. It will enable grant to be paid in respect of expenditure during the year ended 31st March, 1969, as well as in subsequent years. We are now embarked upon discussions with the local authorities. I hope to be examining with them—indeed, I have already started to do so—any change in the criteria which they may want to bring forward for defining these


areas of social need, and any further ideas they may have.
We are embarking, in this programme, on another modest but important step in trying to ensure that every citizen in this country has a fair start in life and a fair opportunity for living out his life. I commend the Bill as a Measure designed to improve conditions for all our citizens alike in areas of special social need.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: We welcomed this proposal when it was first made by the Home Secretary in July, and it follows, of course, that we support the Bill. I think that most doubts have centred up to now not on what is to be done but on how it is to be done.
After the explanation which the Home Secretary has given us, some doubts on that score remain in my mind. Some confusion may have arisen from the version of this scheme which was given by the Prime Minister back in May when he made the speech to which the Home Secretary referred. In that speech in Birmingham which heralded this proposal the right hon. Gentleman indicated that the main objective, with particular emphasis on education, was,
the 57 local authority areas where the immigrant problem is real and substantial".
Either the Prime Minister got it wrong or there have been second thoughts about this approach. At all events, we now have a rather different scheme.
If he will forgive my saying so, the Home Secretary made rather euphemistic references to the immigration content in what is now required. We are now talking of urban areas of special social need, which probably include large concentrations of immigrants, but need not do so to qualify. That is as I understand it. I will come back to the question of criteria in a moment. I see clearly the objection to relating a scheme of this kind directly or too closely to immigrants' needs.
Let me join the Home Secretary in the tribute which he paid to the countless unknown and unsung persons who work in this field. Those who do work in this field dislike this approach; and in saying that as a measurement of social need it is inexact—and that is what they do say—they have a point. But I also see

some danger in going too far the other way, and in seeking to avoid attributing too much to the immigrant population element we should not attempt to blur, at least for ourselves, the enormous impact of that population in certain areas. There is a need to be exact about that also.
It is really quite vain—I must begin by saying this—to pretend that acute social need in particular districts has arisen through a multiplicity of social causes in which immigrants are only unfortunate enough now to be involved. As the surveys which are beginning to come in have shown, a cause of what the Bill seeks in part to tackle is the weight or concentration of immigrant population in particular places.
The Bill, in effect, will add a fourth and fairly complicated tier to what is already a complex structure of urban programmes. As the Home Secretary indicated, we already have housing priority areas which embrace about 130 local authorities; we have a special education priority programme which followed Plowden on primary schools; we have authorities under Section 11 of the Local Government Act, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I think I am right in saying that that is now running at a rate of about £1½ million a year.
By my calculation, out of 90 London and county boroughs 23 are on all three lists; they count for priority under all three heads; and another 40 qualify on two out of three lists. That amounts to a pretty formidable number, all of which may qualify, and there may be others, too, under the Bill. Now we are to have another, a fourth, priority class—areas or districts of acute social need. I take the point about the districts. Presumably, most of these will be found among the 23 areas on all three lists, though I accept that if we are to deal with localised districts or pockets they may be elsewhere.
This may be a convenient moment to ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Minister who will reply to the debate what precisely is to be the future relationship between the Section 11 expenditure and this specific grant. I took the point about the 100 per cent. Can, for example, staff costs—I believe Section 11


is limited to staff costs—now be allowable under Section 11? Can these be incurred under Section 11 for a project provided under this Bill? Is it intended eventually to replace Section 11 by this specific grant?
I note what the Home Secretary has said about talks with local authorities. I do not propose to make a great issue out of whether the amount is to be 100 or 75 per cent.; I appreciate that discussions on this have only just begun. Could it be made clear how far resolving this issue may affect the total amount which will be available? In other words, if it is to be 100 per cent., does the sum of money envisaged between now and 1972 remain the same?

Mr. Callaghan: Mr. Callaghan indicated assent.

Mr. Deedes: I am a little baffled, as are some local authorities involved, how we will get clearly enough defined criteria laid down for this new urban programme in order to administer the funds without an impossibly burdensome administration. By what method are criteria of need to be established? I realise that they will be discussed with local authorities, but that will not establish them. When the criteria have been established, by what process will the most suitable programme then be selected?
From the evidence of the first fruits, the advance programme of which the Home Secretary spoke, and to judge from Circular 225 already issued to local authorities, the central department has decided, no doubt for good reasons, that the areas which will qualify for the advance scheme are those in which 2 per cent. of the households have more than 11 persons per room and more than 6 per cent. of immigrants on the school roll in January, 1967. Incidentally, that is nearly two years ago; why is January, 1967, taken as the criterion? Is there no more up-to-date figure? Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us this.
For these areas it has been decided that nursery schools and classes, day nurseries and children's homes are, so to speak, the best buy, and that may well be right, but how was it determined? By what process was the conclusion reached that this was the best possible way of spending money in the advance programme? In further programmes how

will this criterion be established? I ask, since I know how much of their own research the Government are able to count on, and it is not a great deal.
I noted what was said about the computers, and we shall be glad to hear more on this. Up to now the information reaching the Home Office of a statistical character, on which policy decisions can be reached, is not extensive. In short, is the programme to be determined by a logical process of thought based on facts? Is it partly a guess, or is it, as I fear may be the case, that the needs of these deprived areas are so large that under a programme involving not more than £5 million a year we can pick out only a few things among the many things which need to be done?
I do not want to belittle anything which is being done, but we ought not to delude ourselves—and, to do him justice, the Home Secretary did not attempt to do so—as to what this will achieve in relation to total need. Even if it is taken with the rest of the urban programmes in areas of special need, I question whether this will anything like keep pace with the growth of need in arresting what the Home Secretary called the downward spiral.
Here I must return to the subject of the immigrants. We can, not unreasonably, expect to be added within the terms of this programme, up to March 1972, 200,000 to 250,000 immigrants, which is a conservative guess. If we then consider the evidence of some surveys which are beginning to emerge, we reach an inescapable conclusion that by 1972 we shall be fortunate not to have fallen behind even the point we are now at.
The right hon. Gentleman and the Home Office will, no doubt, have seen the report to Government Departments which has been made by a joint committee of the five West Midland county boroughs. I will not make selective quotations from that document, but it ought to be studied by anyone who wants to measure the likely overall effect of this programme on the total need.
Nor is the issue wholly a matter of concern for areas of special need. One consequence of any system of priorities, which I accept we must have, is that those who are not priority must inevitably be deprived of what they would otherwise receive. As an example of


this, in a document called "Health and Hospitals", describing the background of the Bill, I find this passage:
The hospital building programme averages well over £100 million per annum for the next ten years. The criteria for the distribution of resources are intended to enable progress to be made, particularly where deficiencies and obsolescence are greatest, so as to produce a satisfactory standard in all parts of the country. This policy has in practice worked to the benefit of areas where immigrants and social pressure have increased the demands on hospitals. Many of the areas mentioned in the list of present priority areas have new district general hospitals as well as other major building schemes planned or recently committed. Starts of major schemes in the immigration priority areas amount to more than £62 million in 1969–70 and £32 million in 1970–71, on average more than half the programme for all such schemes in England and Wales.
I accept the need for that, but what is the consequence? Hon. Members who represent more fortunate areas can give some answers to that question. We may be more fortunate, but we also have certain needs. My own constituency is an overspill town. Some of my hon. Friends will have like needs. For various things which we need most urgently—hospitals, roads and schools—we now have to whistle, and perhaps whistle louder than ever before. I must warn the Government that, excellent though the system of priorities may be, it must inevitably build up in some areas the sort of backlog which we experienced during the four or five years in which very little building was done during the war.
The cost of the scheme appears to be borne by the same rather euphemistic formula. Money will be set apart from general economies made in the course of normal processes of managing public expenditure programmes. In plains words, some others will get less. The money will not be added to what otherwise would have been the totality of the cost of the programme. That is what it means, and we should be aware of it.
Before I conclude I have two questions to ask. The first comes back to the point which I raised with the Home Secretary a week or two back when we discussed expiring laws. Since, at least to some degree, the needs which we are discussing here arise from the concentration at certain points of immigrant

population, does not the Home Secretary feel that it would be a good thing to look again at our policy governing the movement of new arrivals? At present there is no policy. Arrivals are free to go where they will, and almost certainly they move towards areas of highest concentration. I accept that any alternative may involve an element of direction, to which there are many objections, although they could perhaps be reduced if a scheme could be initiated before the entry of voucher holders. Dependants must, of course, inevitably go to the head of the household when they arrive.
The more I look at this, the more I think that the objections to the present policy are very strong, are getting stronger and are tending to exacerbate some situations which the Bill seeks to remedy. Even now a form of negative control would be better than nothing—something whereby we said that certain places were no longer open to settlement by the voucher holder. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again.
My second question is: who is to carry main Ministerial responsibility for the implementation of this programme? What sort of machinery will there be? I observe in the circular to which I referred a moment ago that for their nursery schools and classes local authorities are to apply to the Department of Education and Science; for their day nurseries to the Ministry of Health, and for children's homes to the Home Office. Does that make sense? How are we to get an integrated programme on these lines?
The Home Secretary referred to a central department. Is this the interdepartmental committee which has been considering these things, or is there to be a more central department for which the right hon. Gentleman or someone else it to be responsible? There are those who think that the Home Secretary's rôles in immigration and race relations are incompatible, and should be separated. One idea would be to put the second—and, of course, programmes of this kind—under the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am not at all sure about that, but it is essential that a scheme of this kind should become an integrated function of


Government, and that those concerned should know where, in a sense, ministerial responsibility lay for the programme.
This is essential, because the more one looks at the matter the more one sees the danger of policy becoming fragmented over a number of overworked Departments. Moreover, as the results of local, national, voluntary and official surveys begin to accumulate, there is bound to be a conflict of evidence—people observe the problem through different windows. But it will be imperative at some central point, with clearly established Ministerial responsibility, for the right facts, both convenient and inconvenient, to be sifted and brought to bear on policy.
From an admittedly superficial reading of such facts as I have been able to lay my hands on, it seems to me that notwithstanding this Bill we shall, by 1972, be fortunate if in these respects we are no worse off than we are now. The Home Secretary did not seek to exaggerate the impact of the programme, and I acknowledge it. It is, in terms of need, a relatively very small sum and a very small Measure. By 1972 I fear that Ministers may well find that they have a harsh choice to make—either to spend a very great deal more or to seek fresh ways of reducing pressure, and much of that pressure will he the pressure of fresh arrivals.
I understand the fact, and I am sympathetic, that those here who care most deeply about race relations resent and resist very much arguments which relate immigration policies to these urban programmes. With respect, however, I fear that even from their own point of view they may be wrong. What we are discussing here—overcrowding, schools, hospitals, multiple occupation, and all the results of this in an urban area or district—is the very stuff of social tension. Those who insist that there is here a social obligation to be fulfilled without reference to any question of immigration policy, who insist that we should be equal to all these demands without questioning the reasoning for them, are guilty of a disturbing sort of folie de grandeur. Their thinking—I will not say that it is beyond our means, because nothing is beyond our means, and those who say that we are a wealthy country and could do more than we are doing may be right,

but it is beyond the means we think we can afford. I do not go with them.
I take the view that our obligations to those who are now here, immigrants as well as everyone else in these cities, are absolutely inescapable. Our obligations to those who have yet to come and who may increase these problems to a degree ought to be realistically measured against the resources likely to be made available. To dodge that is to store up untold trouble for ourselves. That is why I hope that the Bill, in addition to doing all that the Home Secretary said it will do, may also be a signal to the Government to take a fairly hard look again at the policy over the whole field, and observing some of the lessons of the past, to accept that hard decisions which are shirked here become infinitely harder to make as the years go on.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. This is a very short debate and many hon. Members have indicated their desire to speak. I therefore hope that hon. Members will keep their speeches brief.

7.45 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I welcome the Bill, though I regret the whole background that has led to its introduction. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that it stemmed from the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Birmingham last May, and all of us who have this problem and who live with it all the time very much welcomed his statement that some help was to be given to special areas—17 London boroughs and 17 other towns—that have this problem.
The origin of the need for the Bill goes back very much further in history—to the period from 1951 or 1952 when the party opposite was responsible for the large influx of Commonwealth immigrants——

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: What about 1962?

Mrs. Short: In 1962 the party opposite was also in power— —

Mr. Montgomery: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Short: No, she will not; not at the moment. In 1962 the party opposite took little action, and then it was rather lame action and had little effect.
I have made it perfectly clear here before that I support all my right hon. Friend's efforts to reduce the number of immigrants, and whatever proposal he has in the future I shall also certainly support. I also support the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) when he says that our obligations are to those who are here. That is absolutely so, and it refers to our indigenous population—the white population, and the coloured people who have been allowed to come in. That is why I supported the legislation that was introduced to try to ensure that all our people were treated perfectly fairly and had equality of opportunity.
The whole area is fraught with very great difficulty, and it has been made fantastically more difficult by the recent speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I have the constituency next to his, I have a larger number of immigrants, and I am very concerned with the problems that arise from the whole situation of difficult race relations. I know that that situation has been made more difficult throughout the whole of the West Midlands—and I speak for my other colleagues here—since those speeches were made.
To me, it is extraordinary that those speeches should have been made only since 1964–65. No such speeches were made during the period when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government and in a position to take steps to control the numbers of people who were coming into the country. The Ministry of Housing, the Treasury, the Ministry of Health were ideal positions from which words of warning could have been uttered and action taken.
During that time, houses in Wolverhampton were coming into multi-occupation and overcrowding was evident. Although the housing situation is very difficult in Wolverhampton, the Bill does not make any provision for additional help for housing, although overcrowded and multi-occupied houses were mentioned in the circular sent out by my right hon. Friend at the beginning of October to local authorities. Yet even during the

period from 1955 to 1957 when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry of Housing, no steps were taken to provide relief for his constituency or any others; indeed, during the period from 1955 to 1964 over 560,000 immigrants came in and in respect of the whole period when the party opposite was in power—accurate figures are not available for the first few years—it would not be an exaggeration to say that nearly 750,000 immigrants came in.
In 1963, after the introduction of the Bill in respect of which the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) wanted to interrupt me, about 29,000 work vouchers were issued. My right hon. Friend deserves enormous credit for having reduced the number of vouchers to 4,500 last year. It follows inevitably that this reduction in work vouchers means a reduction in the numbers coming in in the next few years, although we know that there is a time lag of four, five or six years before dependants are able to join the heads of their families and that it is in this period that things are likely to be difficult. We hope that the Bill will go some way to overcome those difficulties.
The situation in Wolverhampton has become more difficult because of the numbers which have been allowed to come in, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will find some way of providing relief for Wolverhampton. If we have help—and the Bill will give us some help—and a respite from inflammatory speeches, I am sure that we shall be able to overcome our difficulties.
As my right hon. Friend said, teachers in towns such as Wolverhampton are making a magnificent contribution towards solving the problem of race relations and deprived children. Many organisations in Wolverhampton are working through the Council for Racial Harmony and are making their contribution to the achievement of a reasonable and sane life for all our people, white and coloured.
The aid that the Government are able to give under the Bill is too small to deal with the problems that we have to face, however. At the moment no help is provided for housing, as I have already mentioned. Let us consider the £3 million or so which is to be given during the coming year. If this is divided among 34 authorities it works out at about £90,000 per authority.

Mr. Callaghan: The figure of £3 million was the preliminary one. On the advanced programme I hope that it will be double that, in respect of the year ending April, 1970. I hope that we shall be able to allocate at least £6 million in that period. The figure of £3 million was related only to the earliest programme.

Mrs. Short: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information, but when I tell him what my local authority has asked for he will see that I have a point when I say that the amount available seams to be rather small.
I welcome the fact that we shall be making a start with nursery provision. I have been urging for some time the need to implement the Plowden proposals, especially in the priority areas. I have urged support for training courses for teachers, including immigrant teachers, who have a special part to play in solving this problem. In Wolverhampton our day training college has made a valuable contribution to the training of immigrant teachers. As the Minister of State for Education and Science said in reply to my Question a few days ago, about 57 immigrant teachers are now teaching after having been trained at day colleges of this kind. I have urged upon my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Science the need to implement a much more generous school building programme, especially for my area. Whatever we do in this matter will benefit everybody—not only the immigrant community but the white community as well.
I urge my right hon. Friend to pay special attention to the pressing problems that exist in housing. We have embarked on slum clearance programmes, but many streets in my constituency are still full of ancient houses in multi-occupation, without bathrooms, hot water systems or indoor lavatories. In my opinion those houses are unfit for occupation by anybody. They are bad enough with one white family living in them but they are intolerable when several immigrant families are living in them in multi-occupation.
At a meeting upstairs—I understand that it was reported in the national Press—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Science said that we were likely to get about 2,000 nursery classes out of this programme. My right hon. Friend has produced a more realistic

figure. I thought that the figure would probably be about 100, but he says that he thinks it will be about 150. I hope that he is right. But my local authority has asked for a fairly long list. It wants three new nursery schools—nursery schools and not nursery classes; it wants two of the old nursery schools to be reconditioned; it wants two new children's homes, a new matron's house, a new reception centre for 40 children and considerable extension of two existing children's homes.
Under the children's homes part of this aid the authority is asking for 79 additional places, and since my right hon. Friend has said that there will be between 200 and 300 additional places in children's homes it is clear that if Wolverhampton gets what it asks for the other 33 authorities will be very much short of what they want, whereas if the allocation is divided fairly equally Wolverhampton will get only a small proportion of the number of places for which it asks.
Wolverhampton needs relief besides financial relief, and for that reason I welcome the Bill, although in my opinion it does not go far enough. Wolverhampton needs relief in terms of the pressure of people coming into the town. Not long ago between 20 and 25 children of school age were coming into my constituency each week. There was also a time when we had four hundred children of school age for whom places could not be found.
This is a serious situation. The figure has fallen somewhat as a result of my right hon. Friend's efforts in another direction, and it is now between 15 and 20 per week. But this is still a high figure. It is clear, as I have said on many occasions—I said it when we were discussing the last Commonwealth Immigrants Bill to be put on the Statute Book—that we cannot continue to take people into the Wolverhampton area, or the West Midlands generally, at this rate.
The basis of this immigration programme, started in the early 1950s by the party opposite, was to subsidise inefficient management in industry, because they thought it was much cheaper to bring people in and to use them for cheap labour—although it did not work out that way—than to compel managements to spend money to reinvest in new machinery in order to increase productivity.
The time has come when industry in the West Midlands should be compelled to face up to its responsibilities. I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity that no work vouchers should be issued for Wolverhampton. This would prevent us from bringing large numbers of additional people into the area.
The A and B vouchers should now be merged. I strongly believe that many of those who come in under the B voucher scheme come to Britain without jobs, whereas the A voucher people have jobs to go to. It is wrong that people should come to Britain and look for jobs, often in areas which they think require their training and education, only to find when they apply for vacancies that the degrees they obtained at home are not suitable and their post-graduate experience is not acceptable; so they cannot get the jobs they come here hoping to get. They therefore work in unskilled jobs, which is pointless.
If we could divert people to other parts of the country where there is not such heavy concentration as we have in the West Midlands, the next logical thing is to say that we should be able to phase the entry of dependants. This does not mean that we deny anything we have said before about families being reunited. I see no reason why we should not put a ceiling to the numbers of dependants being allowed into Britain each year. This would mean that the entry of families would be spread over a long period.
If we did this we should be able to get some relief. We should be able to catch up on our house building and school building programmes and on the nurseries we hope to provide under the Bill. This would spread the intake over a longer period. It should not be impossible to say that, if people are prepared to live and work in areas apart from, say, the West Midlands or any other area my right hon. Friend cares to designate, their dependants would get precedence over dependants coming to join those in the more congested areas. In this way we might give an incentive to people coming to Britain to move to other parts of the country.
This whole question needs examination. We should view it from a Socialist point of view and not be afraid to grasp

the difficulties and problems facing us. As a Socialist I cannot see that it benefits Commonwealth countries if we take from them the people in whose education they have invested a great deal of their gross national product.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West never pays tribute to the contribution to our economy and to the National Health Service made by immigrants who have so far come here. He quoted something reported by the Medical Officer of Health for Wolverhampton, but he did not continue with the quotation and tell us that 10 per cent. of our general practitioners, 20 per cent. of our domiciliary midwives, 60 per cent. of our junior hospital medical staff, and 10 per cent. of our hospital nurses in Wolverhampton are Commonwealth immigrants.
We take from the Commonwealth countries these large numbers of skilled people who to their own countries are extremely skilled and whose services are badly needed in their own countries. If we take from them their engineers and teachers we do them a disservice, because they need their engineers far more than we need them. If we were to say that their people with skills should stay at home and work there, we should put pressure in British industry to modernise. We should take in far more Commonwealth students so that they could train here and gain their first degrees here before returning home to work to raise the standard of living of their own people.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will discuss these matters with the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and for Employment and Productivity. I hope that my right hon. Friend will include in the list of problems he discusses with local authorities the question of what they are doing to extend family planning clinics, particularly in towns where help is being given. Many local authorities are not implementing the Family Planning Act. With education and help on these lines, considerable steps can be taken to improve the standard of living of all our people in all these areas which are designated under the Bill.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I would have liked to have made a longer speech, but in view of your plea,


Mr. Deputy Speaker, having regard to the length of the last speech, and as I have a broken leg and cannot stand for long, you will be pleased to hear that I shall make a very short speech.
This is a short and modest Bill. Its aim is to provide money for areas of special social need. This includes areas with a high percentage of immigrants. This is a problem which has been with us for many years. In the 1959–64 Parliament I represented Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East, where we had few immigrants. I suppose I had 300 Pakistanis in the whole of that constituency. We had no trouble, because they were good citizens and integration went ahead without any problem.
Since April, 1967 I have represented a Midlands constituency which includes part of the County Borough of Dudley arid part of the County Borough of Wolverhampton. I emphasise that latter part for the benefit of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renee Short) because when I had the temerity to ask a Question about Wolverhampton earlier this year she screamed that I should keep out of Wolverhampton. As I have about 20,000 electors in the County Borough of Wolverhampton, anything that attracts grants to Wolverhampton is of interest to my constituents.
I think that we were wrong in allowing unrestricted Commonwealth immigration. Before making speeches of the type she has just made, I suggest that the hon. Lady goes to the Library and reads the debates which took place in 1962 and 1963 on Commonwealth immigration. She would find that her right hon. and hon. Friends kept the Conservative Government up night after night attacking that Bill, and at one stage even talked about repealing it. The hon. Lady puts all the blame for immigration on this side of the House, but she should think twice before she casts stones.

Mrs. Renée Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Montgomery: No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady would not give way. What is good to give is good to take.

Mrs. Short: The figures speak for themselves.

Mr. Montgomery: Also, I think we were wrong to allow immigrants to concentrate in certain areas. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said was true. There is this tremendous problem in certain parts of the country. Other parts of the country are unaware of the problem.
In April, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made a very famous speech in which he highlighted the dangers of immigration continuing. He was reviled by certain sections for that speech. I believe that at least my right hon. Friend started something off in the way of action being taken to deal with the problem of immigration. It could be that it is because of his speech that the Government are now taking action. Both the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said that this came about as a result of the speech made by the Prime Minister on 5th May in Birmingham. But the Prime Minister had said very little about immigration before that date.
Although we do not take much notice of all the Prime Minister says, he stated in that speech that the Government would embark on a new urban programme. This was followed on 22nd July by an announcement from the Home Secretary that £20 million to £25 million of grant-aided local authority expenditure would be authorised this year and in the next three years, and that was followed in October by an announcement that £3 million out of the £20 million to £25 million would be authorised in the current financial year to 34 local authorities which had been invited to submit projects.
Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1966, grants are deducted from the aggregate amount available through Exchequer grant. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clarify tonight whether the same formula is to be adopted for the provisions of this Bill, and, if so, whether the 3 per cent. increase in real terms on local authority expenditure, the limit imposed by the Prime Minister's statement of 16th January, is to be applied to the overall sum before the deduction or after it.
Now, with direct reference to the proposals in the Bill, the Circular sent to local authorities stated that expenditure


in the initial phase would be restricted and that emphasis would be on nursery schools, day nurseries and children's homes. For once, I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East. Not enough is being done in other spheres. Although the circular goes on to say that exceptional consideration would be given to other projects where a special case could be made, to me that smacks of the doctrine that the man in Whitehall knows best. It would have been far better to allow local authorities themselves to decide the order of priority in the projects to be tackled.
As regards immigration and the problems which it raises, I hope that the Bill will go a little way towards easing tension in the areas where there is a concentration of immigrants, but it does little more than scratch the surface. In Wolverhampton today, expenditure on immigrants is being incurred at above the normal level of expenditure, and the local authority has been receiving 50 per cent. grant on part of that expenditure. If I understand the Home Secretary aright, this is now to be increased to 75 per cent. I am sure that the council will welcome that, because it has felt strongly that the percentage should be raised.
What are some of the causes of tension in these areas? First, they are to be found in the health services. I do not imagine that anyone will deny that immigrants make heavy demands on local authority services, particularly the maternity services. The record of births in Wolverhampton in 1967 shows that immigrant mothers accounted for 23 per cent. of births and 33 per cent. of institutional confinements. The result was that many of the indigenous residents could not have maternity beds. This causes tension and trouble, and it also underlines the need for expansion of that service.
I direct attention above all to education. In Wolverhampton today, there are just over 200 children of school age who cannot be given a place in the county borough. This is not surprising. I do not know how the local education authority has managed to cope in recent years. The hon. Lady spoke of the number of immigrant children coming into the county borough every week. In 1962—perhaps these figures will interest

the hon. Lady—there were 1,000 immigrants in Wolverhampton schools. This number grew annually by 500 until, in 1967, the annual intake was in excess of 1,000. In January, 1967, we had 4.500 immigrants in our schools, and by January, 1968, the number had risen to 5,566, or nearly 12 per cent. of the entire school population.
I hope that the Government, and particularly the Department of Education and Science, will bear in mind that no account whatever seems to be taken by them of the number of children who have not yet arrived in this country but who, if we are to go on previous years, are bound to arrive in the ensuing year.
Tremendous problems have been brought to Wolverhampton. Most of the immigrants are concentrated in and about the centre of the town and there is, therefore, need for dispersal to schools away from the centre. The last figures available show that we had 13 buses a day taking 550 children to about 40 schools where accommodation is available. For this service, bus escorts are required which, I believe, cost about £2,400 per year, of which 50 per cent., up to now, was recoverable by grant. But the additional cost of transport to take these children to school is £12,000 per annum, and this does not qualify for grant. What nonsense. The Government must look at the matter again.
Now, school building. The crash programme in Wolverhampton is helping. The Grove Junior School has just been completed in five months. But I am told by officials in Wolverhampton that, if the influx of immigrant children into our schools goes on at the rate of over 1,000 a year, the speed of building will be surpassed by the number of children moving in.
Like the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, I earnestly hope that we shall have a stop to further immigration and that more help will be given to areas such as this, which desperately need it. Although the amount of money provided for under the Bill sounds a good deal in total, it is not much when spread over all the local authorities concerned. I remember the time when, in the dreary days just after the war, I watched a lady making sandwiches in preparation for a function. She


made the butter very soft, she spread it on, and then she scraped it off. I said that it did not look very good, and her reply was, "I know, but when we have very little, we just have to give everybody a taste". All that the local authorities wall get under this Bill will be a taste.
I am concerned about the burden which will still fall on the ratepayers of these areas. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say that, in fairness, they should bear 25 per cent. The whole point is that people in these areas are living with the problem, and they feel that it is very unfair that they should pay for it, too. I hope that this modest Bill will be only a taster and that we shall soon have before us realistic proposals setting out how the Government intend to tackle the problem. The local authorities in the areas concerned must be sick to death of having the "buck" passed 10 them.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. John Horner: I represent a constituency in which one of these areas of need is situated. It has been in need for a long time, and very little has happened in the past few years to meet the longstanding need of Oldbury.
Oldbury is part of the County Borough of Warley, and Warley consists of Smethwick, Oldbury and Rowley Regis. I know that what I have to say tonight will express not only my sentiments but those of my hon. Friends the Members for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) and Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer).
Last summer, we had a visit from my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Ennals), who was then Under-Secretary of. State at the Home Office. He came to Warley and spent some time going round the whole borough with local council officials and the mayor examining the borough's needs on the spot. The discussions with council officials naturally remained private, but at a public meeting my hon. Friend said that he was surprised that of all the areas in which there were concentrations of Commonwealth immigrants the County Borough of Warley had no council for community relations. He suggested that it would be a good idea for the County Borough council to support the establishment of

such an organisation. He made it clear that the full cost of the salary of the trained social worker who would be appointed to look after community relations would fall on the Treasury.
We all expected to see a council for community relations set up in the county borough of Warley. Unfortunately, the local authority took a different view. It thought that although it was right and proper that the salary of that full-time welfare officer should be borne by the Treasury, and not be a charge to the rates, such an officer would require office accommodation and typing assistance. It felt that those were not wholly proper charges to fall on the rates. Therefore, the appointment was not made, and there is no community relations council in the Borough of Warley, although I am glad to say that the churches, the immigrant organisations, the Trades Council and the Council of Social Service are gallantly attempting, without financial or other assistance from the County Borough Council, to set up a community relations council like those in 54 other authorities' areas.
So when we came to examine the effect of the Bill on the special needs of an area like Oldbury, we should have been warned. Oldbury bears the scars of the Industrial Revolution. Much of it is dirty and overcrowded. It has smells, smells that have been there for a long time. When the largest slagheap in the West Midlands was removed to make way for the new motorway extension from the M5 to West Bromwich, the chemical slag of over a century was disturbed. This created a public nuisance that went on for months, and the Ministry of Transport had to take special precautions for a school that was being bedevilled by the stink which had been lying around there for nearly a hundred years.
We have the largest phosphorus plant in Western Europe; they do not talk about clean air in that part of Oldbury. We have overcrowding, and finally we have a number of Commonwealth immigrants. Therefore, I was delighted when the County Borough Council said, "What we need are two nursery classes, a nursery school and a children's centre in Oldbury"—a modest shopping list. But the council attached a condition, saying that it would not co-operate in


providing them unless it was satisfied that the whole cost would be borne by the Government. The leader of the majority party in the council was reported to have said that "Warley people had not asked the immigrants to come there", and that "they were a drain on the resources". I do not know who asked anybody to come to Oldbury. We have many old people. Old people are living longer these days, thank goodness, and there is a problem of the aged in Oldbury. There are overcrowded and neglected schools.
As a matter of fact, the largest concentration of immigrants in the borough is not in my part of the world. They are with my lion. Friend the Member for Smethwick. I asked why we had a request for nursery schools in Oldbury and I was told, "When the new county borough was established, we took in Smethwick, which was an excepted area for education purposes, as a county borough of its own. It has nursery schools. We took in Rowley Regis, which was part of Staffordshire and did not do too badly. It, too, had nursery schools. We also took in Oldbury, which was at the wrong end of Worcestershire and was lacking nursery schools." So we have needed nursery schools in Oldbury for a long time. Now we are told by the council that it will be wrong for my constituents, the ratepayers to benefit from them unless we can hook the immigrant issue on to the question and therefore demand a 100 per cent. grant from the Treasury. That is wholly misconceived and, I must say in the light of some of the statements recently made in the West Midlands, a highly dangerous and most regrettable attitude for the local authority to take. How does one begin to educate the education authority?
I am delighted with my right hon. Friend's statement tonight that a 75 per cent. grant is proposed. The County Borough Council assumed that it might be a 50 per cent. grant, and worked out that that would mean a 3d. rate if all their projects were accepted. I beg my right hon. Friend not to be dissuaded by the attitude of the Borough of Warley. I hope that there will be conferences between his Department and the council. We need the nursery schools, and have needed them for a long time.
The kiddies who go to them when they are built will not all be brown or black children. They will be children of the citizens and ratepapers of Warley, and the schools will be of benefit to the whole community, just as the community relations council will be of benefit to the whole community. It is wholly wrong and grossly misconceived for anybody in a public position to suggest that by devoting time, energy, official work and money into channels of this kind a "privileged class" is somehow established in the community, as has been suggested by the leader of the Warley Council who I quoted earlier.
The debate is a short one. I want to close on an optimistic note about our county borough. This weekend, the rural dean held a ruridecanal conference. He and his fellow Ministers had something to say about the problem that faces all of us in Warley. The conference roundly condemned the attitude of the borough council, and said:
The conference wishes to draw the attention of the council to the following considerations: the contribution that those of Commonwealth origin make by their labour to the wealth of Warley's industries and especially to the health and transport services of the region; their contribution to the rate fund, especially as occupiers of private housing; the status of the majority as British citizens by virtue of their residence for many years; and the probability that the provision of these facilities, which will be available to all children, will also assist coloured children to adapt themselves to the demands of our educational system, and thus minimise any possibility of their presence adversely affecting the education of white children.
I thought that such a far-seeing and Christian pronouncement from the rural dean's conference ought to be read to the House of Commons. I think that he and his fellow priests have shown that the problem that we are discussing and these very modest proposals are not as it were, placing a new unjustified rate burden upon the already heavily burdened people of the West Midlands, Warley, Brent, Birmingham or wherever it may be.
The Government are attempting to deal with longstanding social and human problems which in certain cases have been exacerbated by the developments of the last decade. They should be given the blessing of this House. I give them a modest blessing for a modest Bill. But


I think that in so doing we should make clear that the unwise and gross—I say no more—distortions that are being made about the Bill in certain local authority circles such as the Borough Council of Warley are condemned by the House.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink: It seems that so far the debate has been confined to the immigration problem. Although one appreciates that the Midlands has a major problem, it is clear from paragraph 2 of the circular that there are very many other considerations.
I welcome the Bill as one which goes some way to help some local authorities with some of their problems. With regard to their financial problems, the help, as has beer emphasised, is limited. Much pressure will undoubtedly be put on the Home Secretary to take part in the sharing.
Portsmouth is not in the list of 34 local authorities which are termed most in need, but it would not be very difficult to make out a very strong case for it according to the criteria in paragraph 2 of the circular.
I am in some difficulty in this matter, because only a week or so ago an article appeared in a national daily newspaper emphasising our difficulties and problems and indicating that Portsmouth is under a cloud. This is very far from being the case. The article was very one-sided. Nothing was said about the problems which have been overcome, the problems being tackled and the tremendous progress that we have made since the war.
I do not want it to be thought that in outlining our problems and appealing for more help I am merely endorsing those criticisms and ignoring our real progress. It is true that, like many other cities, we have problems. We have persistent unemployment not only above the average for South-East England but above the national average. We have one of the highest figures for county boroughs for children in care, too large a waiting list for day nurseries, too many unfit houses, problems relating to environment, too many suicides and too many illegitimate babies. All these are national problems as a matter of degree between individual authorities. It is a matter of opinion

whether some of these factors such as children in care, unfit houses and environment problems are perhaps exaggerated because we have gone out to find them and deal with them energetically.
I do not want to make this just a constituency matter. I have cited Portsmouth's problems as an example. I am sure that there are many other authorities in similar difficulties, difficulties most often brought about by closely drawn boundaries, boundaries so closely drawn that it is impossible to rebuild war damage, to redevelop old parts and carry out slum clearance to modern standards without building beyond the boundaries, and at the same time provide for unusually large numbers of elderly people who cannot be asked to live outside. I hope that the Home Secretary will expand his list to include those with the serious problems outlined in paragraph 2.
There is one last problem that I ask the Home Secretary to consider. He has laid down criteria for need, and it follows from the Bill that he considers that money can alleviate it. Therefore, it follows that any financial stringency must aggravate the position. The problem concerns the anomalies that arise under the present grant system. All will agree that whatever formula is adopted there are bound to be anomalies. This was previously recognised by what was known as the rate equalisation grant, whereby authorities which seemed to do too well under the Government grant system paid out to those which were badly off. I remember that Portsmouth always paid up, and now when it needs help that grant has gone.
I give an example of the anomalies which arise under the present grant formula. It concerns the education supplement. Portsmouth, with 28,600 children, receives £385,000; Southampton, with 35,800 children, receives £1,489,000. Thus, Southampton, with only 7,200 more children, gets £1,100,000 more grant. This is entirely due to the weighting factors in the grant formula.
I do not suggest that Southampton should get less but I do suggest that Portsmouth should get more. The City Council has repeatedly brought this anomaly to the attention of the Minister and, rightly, he says that he has no power to do anything about it. I suggest


that when the Bill becomes law, however, the Home Secretary will have that power, although I appreciate that, if we ask for £1 million, he will have little else for any other authority. But I hope that the Government will use this power in future to help Portsmouth and other authorities similarly placed in suffering such anomalies under the grant formula. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will in one way or another manage to help Portsmouth's need.

8.36 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I welcome the Bill. I can say that it is not enough, but I do not think that any hon. Member opposite is in a position to say that it is not enough in view of their calls for a cut in public expenditure. If this Bill is what we mean by selectivity, then I am all for it.
When trying to apportion blame for areas of social deprivation, it would be true to say that, if such a Bill had been introduced 15 or 20 years ago, many of the areas which will benefit from this Bill would have been on the list then. During the debates on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Defence, leading for the then Opposition, said in one of the debates that what was needed was urgent help and assistance to areas which were not already socially deprived but where there was a high concentration of Commonwealth immigrants.
It is a pity that so many hon. Members have concentrated on one aspect of the criteria in the Bill—the presence of Commonwealth immigrants in an area—because this is only one standard, and, as was stated by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink), it is not the sole determinant. My area has one of the highest concentrations of immigrants in the country. At the moment, we do not appear to qualify for aid under the Bill. It does not mean that we do not have social problems but that the high concentration of Commonwealth immigrants within the area has not produced the social problems which many people claim it has produced in their areas. There are reasons for this but, if we look back over the history of social deprivation, we find areas previously which had no Commonwealth immigrants

but which would have qualified for such aid and have, indeed, been in need of it for a very long time.
I am delighted that so much of the aid in the Bill is to go to the pre-school child—the child under the age of five. I have made many speeches about this highlighting the needs of this section of the community. In the enormous post which I have received on this subject have been letters from all over the country pointing out the need for more nursery schools, more day nurseries and more play groups, and one of the things that has struck me has been that they have come from areas with no immigrants as well as from areas with high concentrations of immigrants. The neglect of the pre-school child has been going on for a long time and while it is true that there are greater difficulties where there are higher concentrations of women at work in other areas and many of these women are immigrants, this may act as the barium meal which shows up the need and not be the main factor.
I should like my right hon. Friend to comment on one or two of the problems of my own constituency, especially in education. When I ran a multi-racial playgroup in South London for several years, I found that there were many children, including Polish children whose parents had come to the country many years before, who were about to start school without being able to speak a word of English. I am distressed to find that this is happening in many areas where there is a concentration of non-English speaking people. Anything which can be done in the way of play groups or nursery schools to involve parents in the education of the under-fives and to enlarge social facilities would help to teach not only the children but the mothers English, and it would be an important factor in bringing them into an understanding of and communication with the whole education system.
One of the problems of the under-five; which is mentioned by the Seebohm Report and which is touched on by the Bill arises because Departmental responsibility for dealing with the various needs of the under-fives is so confused and spread among so many Departments. If we could get overall responsibility, perhaps we could make a bigger contribution. When it is possible to allocate


more money in this direction, I hope that we shall bear in mind not only the child from the obviously materially deprived home, but the child who may be emotionally deprived, the many children from seemingly good homes who are also in need of the facilities provided by the Bill.
Only limited provision for housing is made in the Bill and it will not keep pace with the growing demands which will be placed on local authorities which are already in difficulties. I hope that before assistance is given to local authorities, a good look will be taken at their housing policies. Some authorities, such a; mine and many others in other areas, have cut down the building of council houses and are also selling council houses. Some of them are also selling land previously acquired for the provision of local authority housing. Some of them seem likely to create or exaggerate a housing problem which might have been avoided if this policy had not been adopted, and I hope that there will be full and frank discussion before housing aid for these authorities is considered.
In housing as well as in help for the under-fives much more has to be done, because it is the children in need of special care, in need of special day care, the children who are inadequately housed, who are the children at risk and who, unless we are careful, will in future swell the numbers in approved schools and in local authority care. We have to concentrate much more attention on these aspects.
I turn lastly to immigration. I would not attempt at this stage to define an immigration policy, because it would take too long and would be out of order. I may be in a minority on this, but I think that we should get away from talking about immigrants as if they are insensitive, inanimate objects, without any feeling, as if they were statistics that we can add up or subtract, and talk about what they put in or take out. The sooner that we get away from that and talk about areas of social need with immigrants as one of the factors, the sooner we will make a far better contribution to race relations.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough

(Miss Lestor) has great experience of the needs and education of children under five, and of their mothers. I agree that it is highly desirable that the Government should try to bring the whole administration of the under fives into one unified department if possible. There is a great deal of departmental division which militates against the best use of resources. I too, welcome the priority that the Government are giving this, but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I wonder what is being left out.
What is the size of the problem? To begin with, we exclude any consideration of rural educational priority areas, and there are many slum schools in the countryside. I want to keep that on the record, because it is so often thought that slum schools exist only in urban conditions. Secondly, this Bill excludes consideration of the 39 remaining local education authorities sharing in the educational priority area school building programme. The response to the Circular from the Department by the 24 L.E.A.s has been much greater than the Government expected. The Circular speaks of expenditure to be authorised of £3 million for provision and expansions of the three categories, nursery schools and classes, day nurseries and children's homes, and then talks of additional staff expenditure and running costs.
That first item is put at £3 million in the Circular, and yet the Home Secretary has indicated that by 1970, the same date as in the Circular, it is expected that £6 million will be spent. It seems that the response has exceeded the Government's expectations, and I deduce from that that the size of the problem is probably a good deal greater than the Government suspect. What does the nursery education programme add as a whole? The bids received from all the authorities except two have been summarised in a Written Answer on 28th November.
May I say in passing that there are several Written Answers on 28th November giving a great deal of useful information to different Members on this subject. The total bids at the moment amount to a possible provision of 9,000 full-time places, and just over 200 projects. The proportion that it represents,


if it is all carried out, of existing provision, is roughly one-third. The existing provision is just under 27,000 full-time places in nursery classes or their equivalent. The one-third addition, if this programme is taken right through, refers only to the existing low coverage. We should like to know how many children under the age of five are living in areas of acute need. I agree that one cannot simply take the whole population of a local authority area, and that is why this must be a matter of estimation.
All the evidence obtainable suggests the numbers concerned are much greater than even the enlarged provision proposed. This is demonstrated by the waiting lists for any services for children under five provided by the voluntary agencies, for example, the play-groups run by the Save the Children Fund.
I am satisfied that we must regard this as an emergency and, therefore, emergency treatment is required. All the available resources and enthusiasm should be used. Yet there is a basic dilemma in expanding the provision for children under the age of five. Either we give a high degree of help to relatively few children and their families, or we provide a smaller degree of help to as many people as possible. The maintained nursery school education system is probably as good as any in the world, and that provides our best. But to date it has been provided for sadly too few children. Contrast that with the work done by such organisations as the Save the Children Fund, which have very limited resources and get a great demand for the playgroups which they provide in areas of acute social deprivation. Their standards in premises and in numbers of highly-trained teaching staff are much less exacting and, therefore, they can provide effective help more cheaply and often more quickly.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind some of the relative costs because this is important in carrying out a programme on a limited budget as quickly as possible. The capital cost of a place in a new purpose-built nursery school is about £400 with an annual recurrent cost of £150. The cost of a day nursery place is even greater—£1,000 capital and a recurrent cost of £250. On the other hand, for an organisation like the Save

the Children Fund in which one begs, borrows or rents premises, the annual cost of giving 50 children five half-day sessions a week is £2,300 a year. The annual cost of providing a nursery school place on a half-day basis, which is not done at the moment, would be about £75 for five half-days a week for the terms only, whereas the Save the Children Fund can provide a place throughout the year on a playgroup basis for under £50.
The Save the Children Fund has over 100 playgroups in being, almost all with waiting lists and many in deprived areas. What is perhaps more significant is that it has groups ready to start in about 20 local education authorities, five hospitals and seven G.L.C. housing estates if grants are available from the local authorities concerned.
The local authorities are faced with two choices: either they preserve a high nursery education standard everywhere inviolate and leave many children outside, or they spread help as widely as possible by co-operating with and assisting the expansion of the Save the Children Fund and similar organisations. The latter will mean some allocation of money, a small diversion of personnel in the appointment of playgroup supervisors and in the provision of training for nursery aides and, on a lesser scale, for mothers who would be good at helping with children in playgroups.
I hope that the Home Secretary will so expand the categories of help which can rank for grant as to include this kind of provision. If that is not done, the very fact of arranging the 75 per cent. grant may operate to discriminate against work which is carried on by such organisations as the Save the Children Fund.
If local education authorities, as J.L.E.A. is doing, greatly to their credit, are finding 100 per cent. of the cost to enable the Save the Children Fund to do their work but this does not rank for grant, local authorities will become less inclined to support the work done by the Save the Children Fund. The policy of that organisation is to prime the pump by going into an area, getting something started and, once it is established, seeing it taken over by the local authority and then moving on into fresh areas. This is


what, I hope, the Home Office will consider and facilitate.
I stress that I am not putting the idea forward as an alternative. I regard the standards of our nursery education as extremely important. They must be maintained and not debased. If one is faced with an emergency, however, one cannot go wholly by the book; and if we depart from the book for the sake of the emergency, it surely does not mean that we are rejecting the standards. What we are doing, as we must, is working through some degree of delegation. I would rather call it delegation than dilution.
I hope, therefore, that these other agencies will rank for support, because if that is not done there is the danger that the Government may create some splendid new oases but leave too many children and mothers still stranded in a desert of loneliness and deprivation.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. David Ginsburg: The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) has rightly referred to the aspects of the Bill which deal with social need and not only with the immigrant question, but he will, I am sure, forgive me if I return to that aspect of the Bill.
In my opinion, no party in this House can claim a monopoly of virtue in immigrant policy. My party—and, it is fair to add in view of the interruptions in the debate, some hon. Members opposite—clung rather too long to the open-door policy. Equally, however, it is true and it is fair to say that the party opposite, when in government, did effectively nothing to foster institutions that would help to integrate the immigrant community. Indeed, it has been pointed out that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), as Minister of Health in particular, bore his share of responsibility for developments that took place.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I have said before in my constituency, which has an important immigrant community, and in this House that there must be the severest limitation on further entry by immigrants into this country, coupled, of course, with measures to help the immigrant community which is already here and to promote harmony with the local community.
In my opinion, the Bill moves in the right direction but it is a modest measure and it could be improved. I would say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply to the debate, that the consultations with the local authorities concerning the implementation of the Bill have been a trifle rushed. Speaking for myself, I wish we had an additional general grant related to immigrant population in the area. It would give local authorities scope beyond what they can already do under Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1966.
Looking at the Bill from the point of view of my constituency of Dewsbury, it is true, I think, to say that the facilities for assistance for nursery schools will not be utilised till 1969–70. Indeed, it is fair to say that the big problem in the Dewsbury constituency is not yet that of immigrant children. It is still less than the figure in the Bill of 6 per cent. though there is, of course, a very rapid percentage increase under way. The real problem locally is overcrowding, in that there are more than 2 per cent. of households with more than one and a half persons per room. This, as the House knows, is based on information from the 1966 Census. Though one cannot, of course, be absolutely certain, it reflects over-occupation by immigrants in the town.
This brings me to one other and perhaps the most important argument underlying our plea that there should be some more flexible proposals introduced into the Bill. It should be pointed out that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has, following Treasury policy, severely limited loans for house purchase during the second half of 1968–69. I was obliged, following representations from my local authority, to approach the Minister of Housing and Local Government to ask him to think again. He has thought again, but he has been unable to alter his decision.
The effect of this policy has been virtually to halt the supply of mortgage money coming forward to the local authority and in particular which the local authority can advance in order to enable immigrants to purchase older houses for owner-occupation. I would have thought this a very short-sighted policy indeed, because the lack of these funds will mean that there will be increasing pressure on the local authority


to build even more housing accommodation, and that will strain capital requirements even further. I hope that the Minister, in reply to the debate, will be able to say something more positive about Government policy in relation to house ownership so far as immigrants are concerned.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones: I very much welcome the direction the debate has taken, and I am glad to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and to emphasise, as she did, the very important part of pre-school nursery play groups and the effect of the Bill's provisions on them. The House knows her great interest in nursery play groups and her voluntary work for them. It is that I wish to emphasise, following my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill).
Of course the Government have limited resources, and this is only a meagre provision, and I hope they will have very much more regard—no mention was made of this by the Home Secretary in his speech today—to the tremendous importance of voluntary work which there is, particularly in nursery education and child care, which the Government are emphasising. Many authorities already make substantial contributions to recognised organisations—I.L.E.A., for example, to the Save the Children Fund, which my hon. Friend has already mentioned, and also, to the pre-school nursery play groups; Lambeth is extending grant from £4,000 a year to £10,000 in the next financial year.
Because resources are limited they must be used effectively and I should like to see exercises which stimulate local interest and energy and result in the involvement of voluntary social workers. Tributes have already been paid to the staffs of local authorities and I support those tributes, but there is a tremendous amount of work being done by the voluntary organisations. What we want to see is self-help, and less reliance on welfare, with the idea that once schemes are initiated there should be an added spur for enthusiastic support by the voluntary organisations and workers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South suggested, local auth-

orities should be eligible for grant aid where they are supporting voluntary bodies. I have in mind the Save the Children Fund, which pioneers play groups. I was interested in the word used by the Home Secretary when he said there would be a great deal of "pioneer" work involved, and the Save the Children Fund emphasises the necessity for experimental methods in these two vital areas.
Shelter is another charitable organisation which has given substantial help to the deprived areas. Shelter has put up a scheme, which has had the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to acquire 600 houses in the Granby Street area of Liverpool. It is prepared to grant something like £100,000 for three years in order to aid the Granby Street area. I am confident that, in addition, aid could be extended to the areas we are discussing.
The Notting Hill Housing Trust might also be linked in this work, and certainly the Mulberry Housing Trust. As reported in The Times last week, Miss Jackson, speaking to the Association of Public Health Inspectors, emphasised the great scope for intelligent voluntary work in these deprived areas.
Our limited resources must be so used as to stimulate a response of human effort and money from other sources, involving people and the community, the great reservoirs of voluntary service which, happily, are there in our society, from whom I believe an immediate and ready response would be forthcoming.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I will detain the House only for a minute or two. I know that such a remark normally prefaces a long speech, but that will not be so with me. In speaking of areas of special need, it would be wrong for the name of Bradford not to be mentioned. It is important that the problems of Bradford and the region should be brought to the attention of the Minister.
A few statistics may help to show the size of the problem. In Bradford, 53 per cent. of the housing is pre-1914; 27 per cent. of the houses have only an outside water closet; 12 per cent. have no hot water; 20 per cent. have no fixed bath; 15 per cent. do not reach minimum statutory fitness levels.
In education, 68·3 per cent. of primary schools were built before the First World War one-fifth were built before 1870. Over three-fifths of the secondary schools were built before the First World War.
There were serious problems in Bradford before the immigrants arrived; the problems were not created by immigrants. Bradford needed help 30 years ago. It would be wrong to say, however, that further strain is not caused by the increasing population. In the light of those difficulties, such a Bill as this, no matter how small in scope, is most welcome. However. I feel that in view of the size of the problem, the Bill will not even begin to produce a solution.
It is interesting to note that the criteria for acute social need are three. First, the area has to be one of housing priority—Bradford is a housing priority area. Secondly, it has to be an area allocated special school building resources under the educational priority programme—such an area is Bradford. Thirdly, the area has to be one accepted for grant under Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1966, which provides for a special grant to local authorities in whose areas there is a substantial number of immigrants—we qualify in Bradford for that grant also. We are one of only 19 county or London boroughs which, I regret to say, come under all three heads. The fact that we do so means that our problems are immense; yet, although we come under all three heads, it seems that very little is being done.
It is true that in the 1966–67 school programme, and again in the 1968–69 school programme, an additional school was authorised for Bradford, but Bradford appreciates this less than it should because all it means is that there is an authorisation for the city council to build a further school. The money with which to build it is not provided. In Bradford, an area of low rateable value, there is a limit to the amount that can come from local sources.
The Government say, "We have given you 45 teachers above quota in order to deal with the difficulties of teaching English to immigrant children", but, as I understand it, the burden of paying for those teachers comes on Bradford. As we are all interested in removing causes of friction and resentment, it would be a

great step forward if the Government were to introduce a scheme which would create, perhaps, throughout the country a pooling system of all local authorities to meet the extra expense caused by this more recent problem.
I have sought simply to draw attention to Bradford's problems—as I should as one representing a Bradford constituency—but I think that the problem will get worse whatever is in the Bill. That is very sad. Frankly, one is conscious now of a deterioration of atmosphere even in a town with a record of tolerance as excellent as Bradford's. I am not happy now about the future. I say, merely to have it on record so that the Government can take note of it, that even towns with records of tolerance are now concerned, and this is partly because of the emotive lead given by certain speeches in the last six months. They are to be regretted.
I congratulate the Government on bringing in the Bill and Bradford's teachers on the wonderful job they are doing—and they are tackling the problems facing them most manfully. The fact that the schools are old does not mean that the teaching inside them is bad. In Bradford it is very good indeed.

9.14 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: In view of the hour I will make no comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) save to say that I have visited Bradford on many occasion to study this problem. I believe that the people and authorities there have handled this very special problem extremely ably, and have held out an example which could, with advantage, be followed by many.
We, on this bench, support the Bill, but we regret its necessity. We regret that there are areas of special need that require special help. That there are these areas of special need is, in a way, a criticism of both the local and the central Government systems. It is also a criticism of the method of raising finance for local government. There is little doubt that those areas which need most money tend to be those which raise least. Those which raise the most money, in terms of local revenue, tend to be the ones that need least. That is true in the case of this special need referred to in this Bill.
There are ways of evening this out through central funds, but it has not been evened out sufficiently and we regret that these areas of special need exist. Some local authorities have not met this problem with the degree of efficiency, application and even humanity that others have displayed. But we regret most of all the wide and automatic assumption that an area is an area of special need purely because of the presence of immigrants. I agree that in an area of special need the presence of immigrants causes tensions and anxieties to be exaggerated, especially if shortages exist in housing and employment.
I hope that nobody outside the House will assume that special help needs to be given to special areas because immigrants are in some way doing damage to them. It is necessary to comment, as other hon. Members have, upon the contribution that these immigrants have made. I take my profession as an example. At the moment more than half the resident medical staff in our hospitals consists of immigrant doctors. They have also made a great contribution in nursing and in transport. What would happen to our transport services without these immigrants? They are also making a contribution to housing. It is often said that the immigrant population is taking up houses that others need, but it is not so often said that immigrants, by their contribution to the labour force in the construction industry, are building more houses than they are occupying. That fact needs underlining.
We also need to underline the fact that these people cost no more to the social services than do others; indeed, there is substantial evidence that they cost less in terms of unemployment pay and pensions—and certainly in respect of the National Health Service. Much has been made of the fact that the immigrant population has more tuberculosis than does the indigenous population, but not as much is made of the equally undoubted fact that the vast majority contract tuberculosis in this country, and do not bring it in with them. Special help must be given to these areas, but we must make it clear that it is not being provided because immigrants are a special burden. They are not. They are making a contribution to our economy and they are no greater burden on the various services than are our own people.
I end by referring to a letter which appeared in The Times recently over the name of the Bishop of Stepney. The letter moved me very much, and it is one that ought to be drawn to the attention of more and more people. In the course of his letter the Bishop refers to a fact of some importance when he says:
England, by her participation in the slave trade and by her colonial adventures over two centuries and more has been the greatest single contributor to the alienation of peoples from their motherlands … she has no moral right to speak of alienation within her own borders. She has a massive debt to repay; and it will take her generations to repay it. In place of our arrogant assumptions let us turn in penitence, and very swiftly, to the task of reparation.
This Measure, giving special help to certain areas, will help these people and thus go some way to repay the debt. It is in that spirit that my hon. Friends and I support it.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: When I hear talk of the immigrant problem I am reminded of the story told by the late Gilbert Harding, who once went to the wrong part of a bus in one of the Southern States in America. He said that he was told to get off because he was in the coloured section of the bus, and he replied, "I am coloured, because I am pink". There are many "coloured" immigrants in my constituency but I doubt whether they are included among the immigrants in the 34 boroughs. The Bill will not solve many of the problems of the people I have in mind. The great problem of these areas, whether or not they are immigrant-populated, is housing.
When hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say that not enough is being done they should reconsider their views as expressed last week on housing subsidies and public expenditure. This is a job which private enterprise cannot do. Private enterprise has made the situation worse.
It could be argued that provision for nursery schools and classes will not attack the root of the problem. However, these provisions will help those who probably bear the brunt of these physical conditions—the mothers and young children; the mothers because of sheer physical and mental strain, the children because


they are deprived of healthy surroundings and opportunities for play. They may help the children to get an early start to their education, because their later education will be hindered by their environment.
There is much to be said for nursery classes being held in primary schools, if the accommodation can be found, rather than in new buildings. Then the under-fives can be given a gradual introduction to school and can share some of the facilities. Even if there are not teachers for all the nursery classes, experienced teachers are around to help. It is also useful that the older children in the families are close at hand.
Action should be taken on the pay of the nursery nurses and assistants who are responsible for the under-fives. Their pay and prospects are inadequate for the responsibilities they shoulder.
It is not just a question of buildings. Sympathetic and knowledgeable people to help and advise are vitally necessary. Health visitors and school welfare officers are needed in addition to the staffs of nurseries and nursery classes. Information services should be efficient and near at hand. There is a tendency at present for social security offices, education offices, and so on, to become larger and to deal with larger areas. If this continues, there will be a need for local education centres. I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend talk about family advice centres. I hope that we shall hear much about these. I hope that there will be many of them and that they will be sited in and around the shopping and market places rather than in the bleak offices where other services exist.

9.22 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I echo the tribute paid by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) to teachers in the central areas of the big cities. The right hon. Gentleman referred specifically, quite rightly—to the tremendous skill and devotion shown by many teachers in schools having a large concentration of immigrants. More generally, I believe that we tend to forget the extraordinary amount of common sense and devotion shown over generations by teachers in the older central areas.
The Bill sets out to deal with the problems of certain areas in big cities of acute social need. I myself represent a big city, Birmingham. These areas of acute social need are very diverse and cannot all be simply described as slum areas in the traditional sense of the word. When I speak of these areas, I think not just of slum areas but of the large, old, terrace areas, often solidly built, perhaps almost too solidly built in certain respects, where it is unrealistic to expect a major redevelopment scheme in the near future but where I believe that it is particularly important that there should be social improvement.
I expect a number of hon. Members have read with admiration and profit, as I did, "Housing On Trial" by Elizabeth Burney. I want to read one quotation which impressed me particularly:
The problem is the holding together of a disintegrating society while a gradual process of change takes place. This is why the notion of 'positive discrimination' is such an important one, applied not only to schools but to other services (nurseries, playgrounds, clubs etc.) in the depressed areas. The normal pattern is for the redevelopment of housing to come first, and other services to lag behind. But redevelopment takes time. Far better to insert the services first so that everyone has something better while their housing conditions are improved.
As I see it, that is essentially the purpose of the present modest Bill, to do something to improve services and to strengthen morale in these areas so that as many people as possible may have something better. It is a valuable Measure, though modest, as many hon. Members have said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was justified in asking what it would achieve in relation to the total need, and in this context he was right to point out that, in accordance with present policies, we can expect in this country a total of up to 200,000 to 250,000 more immigrants by 1972.
In the same context I say a word to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley). The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he reaches the conclusion that immigrant families make smaller demands as a whole on the social services than do other families. That is correct in relation to the central Government. The article which appeared in the National Institute for Economic and Social Research Economic Review for


August, 1967, is a basic paper on this subject, which, I assure the House, speaking as a Member for an area with a considerable concentration of immigrants, I have frequently had occasion to quote. But let us remember that, while those figures are correct and the conclusion is true in relation to the central Government, those figures are no great consolation to local government because it is the local authorities which face the full brunt of arrivals into this country.
I hope that hon. Members will acquit me of wishing to raise scares on this subject, but I have never wished to play down the very real problems which have been caused for local authorities such as Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Bradford and many other such during the past decade.
I come now to the Bill as it affects education.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Before he leaves the other point, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although it is not the whole story, the problem has a great deal to do with employment opportunities—an aspect not sufficiently laboured in this debate—in other words, where people go to live and where they want work?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in relation to new voucher holders. This is not a subject for which I have responsibility on this Front Bench, but outside the House I have expressed the feeling that we could have had better planning in the past in certain respects. I hope that the Home Secretary will not think that I am deliberately going back over this, but, as I have been asked the question, perhaps I may say that, for example, I have felt that there was some force in the point that it might have been possible to see whether some of our fellow citizens from East Africa could not have gone to a new town in the North of England. But besides the new voucher holders, there is also the problem of the dependants who inevitably, as the Home Office reasonably remind us, tend to congregate where the breadwinner is already at work.
I come now to the educational aspect of the Bill, and I take up first a point

made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks). We all know that a child without educational qualifications can only rarely make real progress up the social and educational ladder and, at the same time, we have come to recognise much more clearly the significance of cultural deprivation for any child during its school years. Education authorities have a duty not only to give a child the best possible opportunity, but to work to remove, or at least to mitigate, the worst handicaps of environment which can inhibit the very development of intelligence on which a child's educability depends.
Many children from the families of immigrants have an extra layer of cultural disability, especially language handicaps. It is with these considerations in mind that I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right today, and the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been right, to lay emphasis on nursery classes and pre-school education. As the Plowden Report made clear, and as American experience has shown, it is precisely the victims of what is called cultural deprivation, and children with language handicaps, who need to start schooling as early as possible, especially if they are to gain the full benefit from their years of compulsory schooling afterwards.
At the same time, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) said about nursery schools and the contribution that voluntary effort can make. We should consider side by side the efforts made by local authorities and by voluntary bodies. There are about 4,000 play groups in Britain today, catering for more than 100,000 children under the age of 5—nearly five times as many children as are accommodated in maintained nursery schools. There is no reason why play groups should not thrive in deprived areas as much as they do in the suburban areas, but in poor areas they may need financial help to get started. It is precisely in giving a start to the formation of such groups that the money available under the Bill can be of special importance.
I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the excellent projects like the first pre-school play groups set up by


the Camden Committee for Community Relations, which has achieved considerable success in its aim of promoting understanding and co-operation between families of many different nationalities. Parents of English, Cypriot, Irish, West Indian, African and Indian three- to five-year-olds are glad to help each other and each other's children by giving a hand in running it. That is the sort of project that I hope we shall always bear in mind.
It is a mistake to think that in priority areas we must always plan in grandiose terms. In such areas, a quite limited project, such as an adventure playground as a limited site becomes available, can often do a great deal of good.
I hope that we shall never forget the importance of education for the children of immigrant families. Here I should like to return to what I said some weeks ago in the debate on the Loyal Address. A number of experts have been rather depressed by our apparent lack of curiosity in Britain about American experience. There is also sometimes a rather naive belief that so long as we tackle the language problem everything else will solve itself. I do not believe this. There are many issues, like dispersal, which badly need more research and greater attention, using experience from overseas as well as in this country.

Mr. Callaghan: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a principal from the Home Office at present in the United States studying the kind of community development that I think the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. We hope to put him on this work when he returns.

Sir E. Boyle: I am very glad to learn that, because there is still much that we can learn from American experience.
Lastly on this point. Let us never forget the importance of housing policy side by side with education policy. The two must go together. Some months ago there was a leading article on the subject in The Times, which I have remembered ever since. It talked about
… the dangers of a vicious circle in which a black face means a poor job, a home in a bad neighbourhood, and therefore a school below average standard for the children.
That is the measure of the problem, and the House should always remember it.
I want to leave the Minister plenty of time to reply, but I should like to ask the Government questions about two points. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford was right to draw attention to the dangers of over-complexity within the Government machine in handling the problem. He pointed out that the urban programme is, as it were, a fourth tier to a structure which already includes the special housing priority programme, the educational priority areas and also Section 11 of the 1966 Act.
I think that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) was completely justified in pointing out the large number of Departments which seem to be involved in the provision of education or play groups for the under-fives. We have only recently achieved what I regard as the real step forward of bringing together all ministerial responsibility for handicapped children. I hope very much that where immigrants and also the under-fives are concerned we shall make as much effort as possible to simplify the administration, so that not too much consultation has to take place between Departments.
I agree with what the Home Secretary said about the need to make an objective assessment of comparative needs, but, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for putting it all on to a computer, it was a little depressing to return to Circular 225 from the Home Office, which is also Circular 1968 from the Department of Education and Science, and look at paragraph 5 and find that the criterion of immigrant numbers on the school roll still relates to the figures for January, 1967, which is very nearly two years ago. I am afraid that I have rather too often told the House the story of the friend of mine at school who used 7-figure log tables to work out an example which took π as equal to 22 over 7. But there is always danger of doing this in the Government machine, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that the figures for immigrants on the school roll will shortly be brought up to date.
I think it has been common ground in the House tonight that there is a continuing need to restrict immigrant numbers into our society. We feel that it is,


frankly, unreal to discuss this Bill tonight without making some reference to immigrant numbers and the acute problems caused for certain areas of Britain. But, equally, let it go out loud and clear from this House on every possible occasion that ours is a society in which all men and women enjoy equal citizenship.
I particularly mention this because in my experience this is a subject on which today young people in this country feel very strongly, and rightly so. There is a very strong feeling now among younger people, including younger people at our universities, on the whole subject of human dignity, the need for justice in race relations, the importance of world peace and the great concern that we should all feel about world hunger. On all these subjects, irrespective of party, I find real concern among the younger generation.
I always think when speaking about this subject of the very finest speech in the whole of our Western literature, the funeral oration of Pericles, which is the absolutely classical expression of the view that people may be different but that their personalities are all of equal value. He said:
Not in our public life are we liberal, but also as regards our freedom from suspicion of one another in the pursuits of everyday life; for we do not feel resentment at our neighbour if he does as he likes nor yet do we put on sour looks".
The House may feel that it is perhaps not altogether inappropriate at this moment to quote not merely a Professor of Greek but the finest speech in the whole of Greek literature.
Having said that, I put it to the House that all of us must also realise the problems that are caused for local authorities today. We realise the tremendous amount of devoted work being done by teachers and also, in my experience, local councillors. I believe that the time has now come generally for less rhetoric and harder work on this subject of immigration and race relations. I welcome the Bill as a step, distinctly modest, that will none the less make it more possible for many devoted public servants of the community to give of their best.

9.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The main tenor of the debate has been support for the Bill from both sides of the House. In the short time at my disposal, I shall deal with as many points raised as possible and will write to right hon. and hon. Members about those I have not time to reply to.
Although there has been general agreement, there has been some question about the size and scope of activity under the Bill. I point out, as my right hon. Friend did, that, already, there are substantial programmes of expenditure in all the sectors with which the Bill is associated. One of the mysteries of political life at the moment is that, whereas we have people complaining about the size of public expenditure, in the country as a whole little is known about the amount of public expenditure and what it is provided for.
There is a record housing programme in deprived areas which cannot be ignored when talking about this smaller Measure, which is for a different purpose. Later this Session, the Government will introduce a Measure to deal with multiple occupation and improvement of old houses, based on methods developed in Leeds over the years. The same story applies to hospital building and to school building plus Plowden. Quite rightly, there are arguments about long-term programmes in these sectors and about social security, but this Bill cannot be judged except in the perspective of the vast programme of public expenditure on the social services.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) raised the question of the origin of this Measure and the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The checking I have done shows that my right hon. Friend made it clear on that occasion that he was referring to urban areas not only in the immigration context. We will be discussing with local authorities the question of definition of areas where they wish to spend money. We realise that the problem is greater than that of the 34 urban areas which the circular originally defined. It is not necessary for the areas with which we are concerned to be in towns and cities. The Bill is drawn to include rural areas.
It might be useful if I mention the phases of the programme. The first phase was the circular of 4th October sent to


the 34 local authorities. This was narrowly drawn in the context of overcrowding and of the percentage of immigrants in schools. It dealt with capital works for nursery education and child care, and running costs of these capital works. Under that scheme, £3 million were provided up to the end of the financial year 1969–70. There was little scope under the circular for experiment and discussion.
The second phase will be a circular, possibly before Christmas, authorising further expenditure over a wider range. The local authorities will come more into discussions on matters such as family advice centres and assistance for play groups. Excluding Scotland, this will mean an extra £2 million up to the end of the financial year, 1969–70. This will be more specific, and will provide more room for manoeuvre and discussion.
The third phase will begin with a circular, to be issued at about next Easter, asking for bids for the rest of the four-year programme, which will give £16 million for the years 1970–71 and 1971–72. It is in this third phase that we think that it may be possible to move into the housing sector. Hon. Members have discussed the question of spending money on housing at this pitch of time, but I have already mentioned what has been done there. Certainly, in the third phase, it will be possible to move into the housing sector, and this is open to discussion.
Local authorities might find that school transport is appropriate among the purposes laid down in the Bill and might well apply to the Government for approval for grants. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)—and I do not blame him, and I must confess that it was my first instinct to do the same—poked a little fun at map techniques with the aid of a computer arid suggested that it might be better to draw on the knowledge of the people in the areas. It is apparent that the best knowledge can be obtained from the people on the spot and we all know that we and local councillors know our own areas very well. But this mapping technique is extremely interesting. A wide variety of different variables can be fed in and the result is maps which are of such value that, I understand, on hearing of them local authorities want to obtain

copies to consider in the context of their own areas. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in no sense are the Government trying to do it all at the centre; there is no suggestion that the man in Whitehall knows best.
As for the financing of the Bill, I am reminded that Pericles also said in his funeral oration:
We pursue high ideals with due regard for economy.
The majority of the specific grants now available are 50 per cent. and the 50 per cent. specific grants under Section 11 of the Local Governments Act, 1966, will be increased to 75 per cent. In due course, the 75 per cent. grant will be taken into account under Section 1(2) of that Act for the purposes of estimating the portions of the aggregate Exchequer grant which the Minister estimates will be allocated to grants in respect of specific services; but only after 1970–71. The grant will be paid in aid of revenue. Grant in respect of capital expenditure which a local authority meets by way of loans will be not on the total cost, but towards the periodical expenditure of loan charges. The 3 per cent. increase for rate support grant for 1969–70 will not include expenditure under the Bill; such expenditure will be additional.
It is intended that the Section 11 grant and the urban programme shall lie side by side. Some staff salaries may qualify for grant under Section 11, while the projects for which the staff are engaged, for example, a new school, may qualify for a programme grant. The urban programme will not be limited to staff salaries: it may therefore be said that the programme will aid local authorities with expenditure for which Section 11 cannot help them, but they will not be paid on expenditure in respect of which a Section 11 grant may be paid. To put it in a shorter version, the new grant may not be used where a Section 11 grant may be used, but it may be used wherever a Section 11 grant may not be used.
I was asked why the 1966 census figures were used as a basis of the circulars of a few weeks ago. The reason is that the latest available figures are those from the sample census of that year. Oddly enough, when the circulars were sent out, the 1967 school roll figures were the latest available.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in the later discussions there will be, obviously, much more up-to-date information to feed into these discussions. This will not be just the sort of figures taken into account for the earlier circular. There are other questions of social need which have to be considered, such as the question of child delinquency in an area.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), and others, raised the question of vouchers. I will certainly see that her remarks are made known to the Department of Employment and Productivity, which is the Department concerned.
I have only recently taken up this job, and one of the odd things that I find is that people tell me that there is mass immigration into this country. This is not so. In terms of the initial breadwinner who enters the country, that is the voucher holder, there is an extremely small number coming in. There has been a reduction since those days of 1963 when there were 20,000 breadwinners coming into the country.
The question that the House has to face, and we have done so in debates recently, is that if there is to be a cut in the number of people coming into the country it will not be on the voucher-holders, but on dependants. One is faced straight away with the fact that in general dependants are coming to join their breadwinners and the latter are already in the congested areas. It is extremely difficult, outside of a State where people have labour passes and so on, to move people from where their families live or to move people who are already here. While I see the problem we must return to this basic point.

Mr. Reginald Eyre: On this point of dependants, where about 40,000 arrive a year, and say about 6,000 come to live in Birmingham, does the Minister understand that when one talks about the costs of the burden falling upon local authorities, many people believe that there will be need for a much greater diversion of resources to deal with this problem as it develops during the years? This is why Members have described the Bill as a very modest proposal.

Mr. Rees: Modest as it is, in terms of what we want to do, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the major programme which I mentioned at the beginning cannot be left out of account. Perhaps I should tell the hon. Gentleman, as he represents a Birmingham constituency, that I have agreed to meet a delegation from the Birmingham area.
Something that I have noted in the last three or four weeks is that people of all political persuasions in the areas where the problems exist most resent those who attempt to sweep the problem under the carpet, as if it does not exist. There is is a problem and all of us, whatever our views, are endeavouring to do something about it. Those people in the field whom we quite properly praised, and whom I have met for the first time in recent weeks, have a feeling that people do not appreciate the curious difficulties that they have to face.
I turn now to the machinery of Government. There is an inter-departmental committee of Ministers. The firm responsibility is in the hands of my right hon. Friend, and the programme is coordinated from the Home Office. It is quite right that, when one is moving into an area concerning health or education, the expert advice which comes from those Departments should be taken into account. I see the problem we have had many times in our social history, of the proliferation of bodies and Departments dealing with a particular matter. There are times when Governments are able to deal with such problems and the right hon. Gentleman mentioned this about social security. At the moment we are convinced that ours is the best way, given the nature of the various interests and the line of communications to local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) mentioned, from her practical experience, bringing in the parents. We are creating something of the American situation. Many years ago the new Americans, the children, had parents who spoke only Polish, Russian or German. This is beginning to happen here. We are talking about young children, I know, but it is important to bring the parents into the educational scene as early as possible, and here the family advice centres are


important. There is a problem which I do not suggest is of vast dimensions.
Some of us remember, however small the memory remains, the efforts made by voluntary bodies to help in the days of the depression. That was not always well received. One reason for it was that sometimes people came in from outside rather too much like missionaries. Now there is the danger in the social field of people from more respectable areas coming in as missionaries to help those with social problems. It is difficult to deal with this matter. A great friend of mine in Leeds has moved into a socially deprived area, but not everybody can do that. The important thing is to bring in the parents because they, being older, will realise the needs of the situation.
It is our intention that the voluntary bodies, whether it be in education or housing, should receive grants. Many hon. Members have made a case for this. In principle it is our intention that they shall be brought into the development of this social programme through the local authorities.
This is not a mammoth Bill, but I repeat that it should be seen in perspective. We have not merely the problem of the immigrants, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) said, we are still dealing with the scars of the Industrial Revolution. Many people in the South who never go north of the Trent would be surprised and perhaps would understand why a high proportion of our housing allocation must go to the cities in the North. I know the problem of a city like Portsmouth; I do not say that problems do not exist there.
But it is not simply a problem of immigrants. In many towns immigrants have arrived in the past and the new immigrants take the place of the old ones as they move to different pastures. When the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) was speaking, I could not help but wonder how many people

talked in that way about the Irish in the 19th century. It was felt that the Irish would never reach the socially promised land. There is hope for the new immigrants. They have a contribution to make to the social and political life of our country.
The right hon. Member for Hands-worth spoke movingly about Pericles. The social workers in the field are far too busy to be considering things of that kind. Nevertheless, he is right. I agree with him that young people are concerned about this matter. Working class people as much as non-working class people are also concerned about it. This country is not made up of millions of Alf Garnetts. If we were to approach the matter in that sense, we should all be better off.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Corn-initial of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Order of the Day relating to Road Traffic may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (SOCIAL NEED) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been been signified —

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment to local authorities in Great Britain of grants towards expenditure incurred by reason of special social need in urban areas, it is expedient to authorise payment thereof to be made out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Orders of the Day — FISH FILLETS (IMPORT DUTY)

10.0 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 11) Order, 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1778), dated 6th November, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
This Order reimposes an ad valorem import duty at the rate of 10 per cent. on imports from E.F.T.A. of chilled or frozen fish fillets. In effect, it restores the full most-favoured nation duty on all imports of frozen fillets landed from E.F.T.A. sources, and thus suspends the duty-free treatment granted on these imports since 1959.
The background to this decision will be familiar to those hon. Members who are concerned with the fishing industry. As part of the negotiations on the E.F.T.A. Convention in 1959, a special regime was agreed for frozen fish fillets, of which details were given to the House on 30th November, 1959, by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Amory. Under these arrangements, the United Kingdom agreed to grant duty-free treatment to imports of frozen fillets from E.F.T.A. countries. But this concession was made on the recorded understanding that exports of frozen fillets from Denmark, Norway and Sweden and their dependencies in E.F.T.A. would expand in a gradual and orderly way, and would not exceed an annual rate of 24,000 tons by 1st January, 1970.
Specific provision was made for what might be done if this assumption was not fulfilled. The remedy was
to modify the tariff reductions already made in so far as this may be necessary to avoid serious disturbance in the U.K. market",
and this course of action was clearly stated to be open to us if alternative remedies could not be agreed upon. The only qualification was that, if we had to use this remedy, it would not be our objective to reduce E.F.T.A. imports below the level of 24,000 tons per annum.
Imports exceeded the agreed level in 1965, reaching over 28,000 tons. But at that time the market was comparatively firm, and the exporting countries said

that the increase was not expected to continue. We therefore decided, after discussions with the three countries concerned, to take no immediate action but to keep the position under review. But, after declining in 1966, imports again rose during the latter part of 1967 and by mid-1968 were much above the agreed level. Moreover, the British market was by now much weaker than in 1965 and the British fishing industry substantially less profitable.
The Government therefore brought into play the agreed procedure. We convened four-power talks which were held in London and in Copenhagen this August. Officials tried hard to reach agreement on a formula which would discourage the Scandinavians from marketing frozen fillets in excessive quantities and at unreasonably low prices. But, in the event, the Norwegian Government found itself unable to accept any form of voluntary restraint, and the Danish and Swedish Governments took the same view. Again following the agreed procedure, the issue was referred to the E.F.T.A. Council in Geneva, where it was thoroughly debated, but by the end of October no solution had been reached. Imports from E.F.T.A. sources continued to mount, the September figure was 3,500 tons, and by the end of October the cumulative total for the previous 12 months was 33,200 tons, at a time when the difficulties in the British market showed no signs of diminishing.
We therefore decided, as we were fully entitled to under the agreed procedure, to restore the tariff at the full most-favoured nation rate of 10 per cent., and the decision was announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 6th November. Subsequently, the matter was again raised at the recent E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council in Vienna, when my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food put the British case with great skill. The Scandinavian Ministers advanced various arguments against our decision—that the quantities concerned were marginal, that consumption of frozen fillets had risen rapidly, that there was no evidence of disruption in the British market. I replied for the British Government that marginal quantities often had a disproportionate effect in a falling


market, that consumption of all kinds of fish—which alone is the relevant factor—was very static, and that from my own constituency experience, apart from anything else, conditions in the British market were, to say the least, extremely worrying. I therefore could not agree to go back on our decision, though, I willingly agreed to a joint review of the situation in February or March next year.
The Order before the House accordingly reimposes the duty at its pre-1959 level with effect from 9th November, and if the Order is approved that duty will apply until revoked or reduced.
There are two points that I should make clear. First, I of course fully accept the provision in the 1959 arrangements to which I have already referred, that it is not our object to reduce imports from E.F.T.A. sources below the level of 24,000 tons a year. That, however, is at the moment a hypothetical situation.
Secondly, we are operating under the arrangements which were agreed for the period up to 1st January, 1970. It was agreed in 1959 that before that date the four Governments concerned would consult about the regime to be applied from 1970 onwards. What that regime will be depends. of course, on the outcome of negotiations which have yet to be held. This Order does not prejudge in any way what the regime should be from 1970 onwards, nor does it prevent our taking, at any time, any further action consistent with our international obligations if, in our judgment, this should be necessary.
The House has more than once expressed its concern, which I strongly share, over the difficulties facing the British fishing industry. This Measure is intended to deal with one aspect of the problem, the current high level of imports of frozen fillets from E.F.T.A. sources. It has been taken after detailed talks with our Scandinavian and E.F.T.A. partners. These talks have shown that our Scandinavian partners cannot give us any assurance that imports will not continue to increase beyond the level agreed in 1959. We have, therefore, been forced to take this action. We have throughout, as I hope the House will agree, acted correctly, with moderation, and in full accordance with our international obligations. But, at the end of the day, we also have obligations

to our own fishing industry. I, therefore, ask the House to approve an Order withdrawing a concession made by the United Kingdom on a condition which has manifestly not been fulfilled, and giving us a remedy specifically reserved to us when that concession was made.

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the House, especially as I see some very enthusiastic fishermen here, that we are debating simply whether or not a 10 per cent. duty should be imposed on chilled or frozen fish fillets.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: It is very pleasant to be able to welcome the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) back to our debates on fishing, and I am sure that we are all grateful to him as President of the Board of Trade for coming down to the House at this late hour to introduce this Order.
This Order, as he said, is introduced when the position of the fishing industry is far from happy. Landings are up, grossings are down, as we have said already in previous debates, so that I shall repeat only one figure. The distant water vessels today are losing some £ 18 6s. per vessel per day, with the result that ships are laid up or scrapped. The reason for this is not inefficiency in the British fishing fleet but the loss of traditional grounds and the fact that we are the largest open market for fish in Europe——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is tempting himself to go wide of the Order.

Mr. Wall: I note your warning, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it relevant to say that we are the largest open market for fish in Europe because that is relevant to the fact that the President of the Board of Trade wants to put a 10 per cent. tariff on imported frozen fillets from E.F.T.A. sources.
We believe this Order is justified because, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the agreed amount of imports, 24,000 tons of frozen fish fillets, has been exceeded. He pointed out, and this is of great importance to the House and to our standing in the world, that the agreed procedure under the E.F.T.A. arrangement has been carried out most scrupulously by the


British Government. As the President said, the import figure in 1965 rose above the agreed amount. This led to discussions, but if was rightly decided to take no action. I say rightly because in 1966 the imports fell well below the agreed figure, but they rose again in 1967. In 1968 the figure given by the President of the Board of Trade was 33,200 tons, roughly 10,000 tons more than the agreed maximum. Therefore, it is obviously right for the Government to undertake talks, as they did, both in London and in Copenhagen, and the matter was raised in the E.F.T.A. Council in Vienna.
As we were told today, and as we have read in the Press, our partners in E.F.T.A., particularly, Norway, Denmark and Sweden, failed to agree with us to reduce to the agreed minimum their exports to this country of frozen fillets. We are therefore, obviously within our rights to put forward this Order. But it is equally clear that our E.F.T.A. partners will be annoyed with us for so doing.
There are two basic questions which I will ask the Minister and which he will no doubt deal with in replying to the debate. First, will it work? There are two reasons why I am worried that the Order may not achieve its objective. First, there are the subsidies which Norway pays to her fishing industry. These subsidies have risen from £6·7 million in 1966–67 to £9·7 million in 1967–68, and to £11·5 million in 1968–69. These figures are quoted from Norwegian sources. Other higher figures have been quoted, but the figures I have quoted are related to the value of sterling before devaluation.
We on this side of the House know that Norway's fishing industry is more important to her as a national industry than is British fishing in relation to our industrial capacity. We know that Norway depends upon small, scattered fishing communities, and that something like 80 per cent. of her fish is processed and exported. What is to stop Norway increasing her subsidies once again in progression, as she has done for the last three years, so making it well worth while for her exporters to send frozen fillets to this country, while the Norwegian Government absorbs the extra

10 per cent. which we are now to charge?
My second question concerns Iceland. Iceland is not yet a member of E.F.T.A. and, strictly speaking, the Order does not apply to Iceland. But I understand that the Parliament of Iceland has now decided to make application to join E.F.T.A. Is the Minister thinking of the long-term problems that this Order, or similar Orders, should deal with? Iceland devalued by 25 per cent. last year and by 35 per cent. this year. It is quite likely that Icelandic fillets may flood this market because of that 60 per cent. devaluation. In 1967 they sent us £1,800,000 worth of fish and fish products. Are the Norwegian fish fillets which have been flooding the country now to be substituted by Icelandic fish fillets?
I sum up by saying that we on this side believe that the Order is necessary, but that it is only a temporary palliative. In any case, as the Minister told the House, the whole question has to be discussed next year under the original 1959 Agreement. The Minister has told us that it will be at the beginning of next year, in February or March. Therefore, the Order can be only for a period of a year or so. It is clear that the Order is welcomed by the industry. It is equally clear that it is not welcomed by our E.F.T.A. partners. The important factor here is that the Government have gone through all the processes of negotiation, and are completely justified in bringing the Order to the House. We submit that there is a real need for an investigation into the whole question of fish imports in the long term——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is again going rather wide of the Order.

Mr. Wall: We accept the need for the Order, which is welcomed by the industry. It is an Order which we have been told will be renegotiated within the next 18 months. We believe that it is only a temporary palliative, and that we should go very much further in our investigations, as other countries may also use the open market that this country presents for dumping their subsidised or excess fish.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on being able, on this occasion, to combine with such a degree of felicity both his interest as President of the Board of Trade and his interest as the hon. Member for Grimsby. It must have been very galling for him in the past to have attended such debates as this and not to have been able to take part in them. We all know of his interest in the industry, his interest in his constituency, and his interest, too, with the other side of the Humber on this one particular point.
What general effect does my right hon. Friend think that the Order will have on United Kingdom production of this commodity? The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has already referred to Norway's trying to undercut us by increasing her subsidies to her own industry. There is one obvious answer to that, which is that the trawler owners, who are begging for subsidies from our own Government on the one hand, and importing foreign fish cheaply on the other hand, could stop importing the foreign fish if they so wished. Perhaps the subsidy should geared to some such provision.
We have a real problem to face here, and we have also a problem in the devaluation of the Icelandic currency. A few weeks ago I put down a Parliamentary Question to my right hon. Friend on the effect of the devaluation of Icelandic currency in relation to this Order, and he was not then able even to hazard a guess. Perhaps he might be able to do so this evening, and also hazard a guess on the possible effect of increased production and sales of the British commodity.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade on their having conducted the E.F.T.A. negotiations very skilfully and, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice said, most scrupulously. It might have been better if we had had rather more praise coming from other quarters for the attention which the Government have paid to this industry, and more congratulation on their great efforts for people who earn their living from the sea——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not concerned about the efforts the Government have made, except by imposing a 10 per cent. import duty on chilled fish.

Mr. McNamara: That the Government should impose a 10 per cent. duty on chilled fish shows how dear to them are the interests of our constituents on Humberside.
What future does my right hon. Friend see for the industry when this duty ends? This is an important point in view of the negotiations which are to take place within E.F.T.A. The relative importance of the fishing industry to the nation's industry as a whole as compared with Norway, and to a greater extent in Iceland, does not make this issue one of such vital importance to the United Kingdom as a whole, but it is of great importance to those in fishing industry constituencies.
I might add that, after some of the discussions we have had recently, it is interesting to see the Opposition approving an import surcharge.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: It may seem curious that the hon. Member for Banbury should take part in a debate on fish fillets. Banbury is perhaps the constituency furthest away from the sea. I have no constituency interest and no financial interest in fish or in fish fillets. I speak as Chairman of the Anglo-Norwegian Parliamentary Group, and perhaps one of the purposes which the Inter-Parliamentary Union can serve is to see that, in such a debate as this, the view of the Norwegians, which the Minister has very fairly put, can also be put by a member of the group.
I am concerned with the effect of the Order upon Anglo-Norwegian trading relations and our relations and Britain's good name within E.F.T.A. The Minister said that in the 1959 negotiations fish fillets were accorded free trade status provided E.F.T.A. exports to the United Kingdom did not exceed 24,000 tons by 1st January, 1970. The Record of Understanding stated that any excess above 24,000 tons should be discussed having regard to two factors—first, the conditions prevailing in the fishing industry—about which I know very little—and, secondly, the curent trends of consumptions in the United Kingdom market.
On the first, I wonder whether the 10 per cent. duty which has been imposed will have the desired effect. On the second point, concerning current trends of consumption in the United Kingdom market, consumption has increased by between 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. a year. Therefore, it is obvious that these imports, which have increased from 5,900 tons in 1959 to the figure that the Minister gave of 33,200 tons in the present year are the very essence of the spirit and purpose of E.F.T.A. According to my understanding, the E.F.T.A. agreement provided that we would discuss the current trends of consumption—and this increase is part of the changing pattern of consumption in this country.
A civilised trading nation such as we are should take note of the effect of these tariffs, import duties and preferences on the people affected, and their livelihoods. As my hon. Friend said, the Order will affect those fishermen in North Norway. Those who know North Norway will appreciate that alternative sources of income are few, as are alternative kinds of employment. The fishermen of North Norway will suffer. There is an analogy here with the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. In a similar way to that in which the 1959 negotiations were designed to protect the Norwegian fishermen, the Sugar Agreement protects Mauritius, Swaziland, Fiji and the West Indies. It is designed to protect the people and the stability of their countries, as is the case here with North Norway.
Returning to the figure of 24,000 tons, I doubt whether the excess above that figure will have very much effect upon the fishing industry. If it is acceptable up to 24,000 tons I should like to know whether the Minister will tell us why he did not place an even higher duty upon the excess over 24,000 tons.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot amend the Order. He can argue against or for the 10 per cent. He cannot amend the Order.

Mr. Marten: My argument against the Order is that a duty should have been imposed on an excess over 24,000 tons but that the 24,000 tons should have been allowed in free of duty.
It is important to realise that while the export of fish fillets from Norway has risen her export of other fish to us has fallen. That is a balancing factor which should be taken into account in our study of this question. I do not like the Order because it is another slight black mark against this country in the E.F.T.A. context of our trade with Norway. We had the import surcharge, investment grants, customs import deposits, aluminium smelters, devaluation——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the whole policy of the Government and their relations with E.F.T.A. We are imposing a 10 per cent. duty on chilled frozen fish.

Mr. Marten: I end, following on your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, by expressing the hope that the Norwegians' trust of Britain will not be destroyed by this series of measures and, in particular, by this one. I hope that the Government will think again and at the next meeting will abolish the 10 per cent. duty.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I hope that I shall be in order, Mr. Speaker, speaking as a Northumbrian. Our Kingdom once extended from Fife to the north bank of the Humber, where I now have the honour to be the Member of the West division of Hull, where the finishing port is. I am also a member of the Anglo-Norwegian Parliamentary Group and am a loyal member of that group, like my Chairman, but I have divided loyalties.
I hope that I shall remain in order if I next make a quotation from The Times of 21st November:
Frozen fish fillets are not a subject calculated to put fire into the bellies of most British politicians. But in Norway things are different.
They are very different in Hammerfest, as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) knows.
The Minister gave us a succinct account. I shall not attempt to gild it with facts or figures. The Minister told us—we accept this—that we have obligations to our own industry. I, as a Humberside M.P., think that the Minister has done a good job and is tonight standing up for his Grimsby constituency,


where things have been most difficult; but some of us have attempted to help him in the past.
The question of the 10 per cent. is being argued and fought inside this Chamber and indeed elsewhere. The arguments for and against were put amongst the E.F.T.A. Parliamentarians at Strasbourg.
I want to say this in support of the 10 per cent. imposition. The pattern of our fish imports is constant. Those of wet fish are falling and frozen fillets are increasingly coming in. Under the agreement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Mr. Amory, as he then was—negotiated in 1959, 24,000 tons not to be exceeded for 10 years was a sensible figure. The then Mr. Amory said that we could discuss this with our E.F.T.A. partners at the end of 10 years but that we could not go below the 24,000 tons at any time in the 10 years. Therefore, we have played the game in that connection.
We are now importing these enormous quantities of fillets, but we have some vessel owners who are importing frozen fish fillets, and who are with their own fleet catching fish. Therefore, this is a difficult question for us in our constituencies, where we have vessel owners, workers unloading the fish, other workers catching the fish and also fish merchants. We have these conflicting arguments put forward by various sections. There is no doubt but there is a need for a measure of this kind because, as the statistics show, the figures of imports of fillets have risen. About 26,000 tons were imported in the first nine months of this year.
When the matter was discussed in 1959 the basis of the Norwegian case against our imposing the 10 per cent. was that arty excess above the 24,000 ton ceiling was to be discussed
having regard to the conditions prevailing in the fishing industry and the current trends of consumption on the U.K. market.
Is it desired that it should be higher than 24,000 tons? At the moment there are some months to go and this can be discussed in amity with our E.F.T.A. partners. Then we can talk about 24,000 tons or 26,000 tons, as the case may be.
When one talks of frozen fish fillets coming to Britain, the case boils down—I have the figures, but I will not bore the House with them all—to what effects dif-

ferent kinds of national subsidy have on the final price of frozen fish fillets. Are the Norwegian fillets which are coming in cheaper than ours? Are our vessel owners buying them and selling them again, instead of marketing fillets from fish which we catch in our own British fleet which leaves Humber and other ports?
The debate will continue. The Minister will face this debate over the 10 per cent. or no 10 per cent. in the coming months. It will be a fairly heated battle between us and our partners in E.F.T.A. I accept all the things which have been said about our E.F.T.A. partners. They are good partners whom we do not want to offend. We want to work together in all this. So my concluding word is that we should wait for a few months. Let us have some patience. Let us see what the import figures are in the coming months, under the 10 per cent. impost. Let us see where we go-27,000, 29,000 or 30,000 tons. Then, in the light of the figures, let us decide whether the 10-year agreement which Mr. Amory negotiated should be lifted over the 24,000 tons but only after the 10 years are up.
That is my view and I say sincerely that it is the view of the fishing industry in my constituency.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: I did not intend to take part today because I welcomed in another debate the projected Order which has now come before us. However, I have two points to make arising out of what has been said.
Following what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), I must say that no others in the House have as much sympathy for the Norwegian fishing industry as those of us who represent fishing ports in Britain. We know that their problems are our problems, and they arise out of a large world market. I see that you are getting a little restless, Mr. Speaker, so I say no more on that aspect save that I am sure that, when we can return to full accord with Norway, the fishing industry of this country will be as pleased as everyone else.
Both the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson)


spoke of trawler owners who import cheaper fish than they can land themselves. This practice is not quite so bad as it might seem without a full explanation. In this country, there is one very large and some other smaller frozen fish producers who market frozen fish in the form of fillets and fingers but who import direct and have no trawler interest. The trawler firms who have an interest in marketing fish fillets themselves are, therefore, in competition and, to maintain their position in the market, they have to buy in the way to which hon. Members have referred.
This has an importance also for those who are employed in the freezing and marketing of fish, as the Minister himself knows. Their employment might be affected if these firms were driven under by competition.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) reminded the House that the fishing industry is not confined to the East Coast, to Scotland or to Banbury, but we have an efficient fishing industry on the Lancashire coast, too. I do not claim that the city and port of Liverpool is engaged in the fishing industry, but we have links with it stretching from North Wales and up the Lancashire coast.
There have been references to the effect which the Order may have on the balance of payments. It is supported by the industry and will, doubtless, be opposed by E.F.T.A. But I take up one point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), and ask my right hon. Friend to tell us whether he has been able to make an estimate of the effect which the Order will have on the cost of fish to the consumer.
We in the North-West can claim to be the area which consumes the greatest amount of fish in all the United Kingdom. Is there not a danger that, when the effect of the Order works through, we shall have the old story that there has been a 10 per cent. tax on fish and the price of all fish will be up by 10 per cent.

Mr. McNamara: Mr. McNamara rose——

Mr. Ogden: That may not be true in every case, but may we have an estimate

of what the effect of this necessary and desirable measure——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister cannot answer the question which the hon. Gentleman has raised. It would be out of order.

Mr. Ogden: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to challenge your Ruling, but I am asked to approve an Order which increases the cost of fish by 10 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may argue that it could increase the cost of chilled or frozen imported fillets by 10 per cent.

Mr. Ogden: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, of course. Can the Minister give an estimate of the effect the Order will have on the cost of fish to which the Order refers?

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I agree with what the President of the Board of Trade said about the substantial and growing imports of fillets of fish from Scandinavia causing worries for the British fishing industry. The figure he gave of 33,200 tons of fillets coming in in one period of 12 months showed what an increase there has been recently in these imports.
I well remember Lord Amory's statement at the end of 1959. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) pointed out tonight that since then there has been massive subsidising by Norway of her fishing industry. We are speaking tonight only about fillets and not imports of wet fish, but the two are related, and action is needed.
The President of the Board of Trade told us tonight of the procedures he and his colleagues have gone through with our E.F.T.A. partners in order to ensure that the 10 per cent. duty is imposed in the right way. But it is disquieting that the Scandinavian countries should feel they have been badly treated. In reply to a Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 10 days ago I was told, or so it seemed, that Norway was still pursuing her complaint about the proposal to impose the 10 per cent. duty. I hope that we shall be told tonight whether this is so, and whether there is an appeal procedure under which


Norway, and perhaps the other Scandinavian countries, can continue to complain after the Order has gone through the House, as it appears that it will tonight.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) I feel a great friendship and admiration for Norway. My hon. Friend spoke about the fishermen of northern Norway and some of their problems. I remind him—I do not need to remind the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—of the problems of the fishermen of the North of Scotland, which are somewhat similar. I understand that Norway has excellent fishing grounds very close to her coasts, and that when she extended her fishing limits she pushed British fishermen out of those fishing grounds. The Norwegians have been able to benefit from that, and fish them successfully.
I should like to turn to the consumer, whose interests must be looked after. With fish, a perishable commodity, it is vital that we should not allow our own fishing industry to be seriously reduced or damaged, because that could later mean that supplies of fresh fish are not available to the housewife. That is why I agree that some action was necessary by the Government at this time. I hope that they have judged it correctly, and that a 10 per cent, import duty is the answer.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Crosland: With permission, perhaps I might answer one or two of the points raised, beginning with one or two specific fish points, if I may so describe them, raised by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), and the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). They all asked whether the duty would work and what would be the effects on the British industry. It is very difficult to predict the exact effect, because imports fluctuate markedly from month to month, and are to a large extent subject to forward contracts.
It will be some time before we are in a position to tell what the effects are. All I can say now is that I shall be keeping the situation under very close review. Perhaps I could say, in addition, to my

hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, that I very much hope that in this situation our own industry will be encouraged to reverse the fall in its share of the frozen fillet market.
Secondly, I was asked what we should do if the Norwegians increased their subsidies. The best thing is to wait and see. We do not know whether they will or not. It is better not to answer hypothetical questions of this kind.
Thirdly, I was asked questions about Iceland, which I hasten over rapidly, Mr. Speaker, before I incur your disapprobation. As to devaluation, I would point out to those who are worried that we had a large devaluation on the part of Iceland at about this time last year which apparently had no effect on its exports of fillets to the British market. So it is too early to become unduly pessimistic about this.
As to the possible accession of Iceland to E.F.T.A., it is too early to decide what its effects would be. We must wait and see what negotiations take place between Iceland and E.F.T.A.
I was asked by one of my hon. Friends about the effect on the cost to the consumer. I can assure him that this tariff does not apply to salt fish, which, I understand, used to be a popular Sunday morning breakfast food in Liverpool. The effect on the price of frozen fillets must depend on how much of the duty is absorbed by processors and distributors, but this is a very competitive industry and I find it hard to believe that there will be any significant effect on prices.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), playing an unexpected part in our fishing debates—it is highly desirable that these debates should not be dominated by those who represent the fishing industry—raised a point of great importance. These wider trading considerations should be put in our minds. I have great sympathy with what he said. I hope I do not yield to him or anybody else in my belief in Anglo-Norwegian trade or generally in Anglo-Norwegian friendship. I will not go in detail into the merits of the argument between us and the Norwegians because he confesses to not being an expert on the industry. I make two points only. First,


the whole tone of the discussion of the matter between ourselves and the Norwegians—I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will agree—was throughout friendly and very much in the spirit of E.F.T.A. co-operation. Secondly, as I think the hon. Member would concede, we have, as I said in my opening speech, consistently acted according to the letter and spirit of the arrangements made in 1959. So, although we must watch the future of Anglo-Norwegian relations very carefully, I do not think we stand in any way guilty of a breach of either the letter or the spirit of our arrangements.
The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) asked what the next step in E.F.T.A. would be. The answer is given in the E.F.T.A. communiqué, which reports that it was agreed to review the matter in February or March next year to see whether an agreed solution would be possible.
Lastly, a number of hon. Members raised wider questions on the future of the fishing industry as a whole. I should be out of order if I sought to answer them. I merely say that I have great faith in the future of the industry, and, like the rest of the Government, am determined to do all I can to secure a viable and prosperous future for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 11) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968. No. 1778), dated 6th November, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAY CODE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [18th November],
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled the Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th October, and approves the revised Highway Code contained in pages 4 to 44 thereof.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has the floor. Mr. Graham Page.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Theoretically, I have been addressing the House

for a fortnight. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are pleased that I have not actually been doing that. So far as the debate has been concerned. I have been silent for that period, and that perhaps is a blessing.
But it is not a blessing that the Minister has been silent also. A fortnight ago hon. and right hon. Members from both sides of the House and all parties made some very impressive criticisms of the draft Code which the Minister brought before the House, and not only criticisms but valuable, constructive proposals for amending and improving the Code.
The adjournment of the debate gave the Minister the opportunity to revise and improve the Code, taking into account the proposals and suggestions made by hon. Members, and to bring it back in a new form. But he has remained silent during these two weeks. He has stubbornly refused to take the opportunity offered. Perhaps I am understating it when I say "opportunity". There was, I think, a clear directive from the House that the Code in its present draft form was unsatisfactory. The House refused to give him the Closure but he has ignored that and has brought back the same Code, hoping to steamroller it through.
One wonders why the Government bothered to bring the draft Code before the House at all if we are not allowed to have any influence over its contents. It is ironical perhaps that the House is the only interested body which has no power to influence the contents of the Code or effectively to propose any amendments to it. Sixty interested bodies have been consulted. They have all had a go at the draft. Some of them have proposed, and have succeeded in achieving, substantial amendments to the draft. But Parliament, apparently, must not touch it, although we can talk about it, of course.

Mr. David Webster: That puts us on a par with the Cyclists' Union, which has not been consulted.

Mr. Page: It puts us on a par also with the Pedestrians' Association. But in that case I have been more fortunate than I am as a Member of this House,


being art officer of the association, and I should say here that I am grateful to the Minister for submitting the Code to the association in draft and adopting a substantial number of the association's proposals. On the other hand, we have heard from other associations, in particular, the Cycling Council of Great Britain, an old-established, respected and moderate body, that they were not properly consulted.
However, I am happy, after what was said about this in the earlier part of the debate, to put on record the Minister's very courteous apology to the Cycling Council of Great Britain. I have here a letter from the secretary of the union, which says that, as a result of the debate
 … the Minister personally has apologised to me for the way we have been treated … during the preparation of the new Code.
It is right to put that on record. But it is also right to quote further from the letter. The Secretary also states:
I naturally appreciate this gesture, but it does not of course solve our problem, and the least he can do to make amends is to re-open the case' …. I do hope Members will continue to press the Minister to withdraw the Code so that important matters of contention can be properly considered ….
Of course we all realise that the Minister cannot please everyone. He cannot put in the Code everything that everybody wants. The major difficulty in drafting a code of this sort is surely the selection of material. One cannot fill the book with rules of ideal conduct. It should contain only the most important rules of reasonably safe conduct—not, as I have said, ideals, and for a practical reason. The draft Code quotes, on page 4, Section 74 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, as follows: I quote extracts from that Section:
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the highway code … may in any proceedings … whether civil or criminal … be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.
If in the Code we direct one kind of road user to take certain exceptional precautions, we may deprive him of compensation if, at the time of an accident, he is not taking those exceptional precautions.
For example, further down the same page it is said in paragraph 4:
You can be more easily seen in the dark or in poor light if you wear or carry something white, or light-coloured, or reflective. This is important on country roads without footpaths.
But one has to couple that direction with the direction in paragraph 34 to motorists:
Never drive so fast that you cannot stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
and that in paragraph 90:
When it is dark, drive so that you can stop well within the distance you can see in your headlamps to be clear ahead.
If a pedestrian is knocked down when he is not carrying something white, it may be held to be contributory negligence on his part and while paragraph 4, about carrying something white, is good advice, its very existence in the Code may easily result in an injustice to an injured person.

Mr. Hector Monro: Is it not astonishing that the Government should be giving this advice and at the same time charging Purchase Tax on luminous arm bands which fulfil it?

Mr. Page: That is certainly an anomaly. The Government ought to assist those who are walking on roads at night to be seen clearly.
There is another example of the difficulty of reconciling paragraphs in the Code. Paragraph 16, which is a direction to pedestrians, says:
When you cross at a road junction look out for traffic turning the corner, especially from behind you.
That has to be coupled with paragraph 47, a direction to motorists, which says:
When turning at a road junction, give way to pedestrians who are crossing.
It is reasonable to tell a pedestrian that he should not start to cross the road without looking behind him to see whether there is turning traffic coming across his path, but as paragraph 16 stands it means that a pedestrian must have eyes in the back of his head to see whether, while he is crossing, traffic is turning in behind him.
This is extremely badly worded and one can imagine the cross-examination of a pedestrian who has been injured crossing at a T-junction: "Did you look


behind you before you started to cross?"; "Yes, I did, there was no car in sight"; "When you were half way across, did you look behind you to see whether traffic was turning from behind you?"; "No, I did not"; "But ought you not to have done so, according to paragraph 16 of the Highway Code?". He should have done so, as the paragraph is worded. It is nonsense.
This is the sort of difficulty which will arise not only in court at the hearing of a claim for damages, but during negotiations for damages with an insurance company. When the law provides, as I am sure it eventually will for compensation for those injured in road accidents irrespective of whose fault it is, we shall not have to worry about this sort of thing in the Highway Code and we shall be able to include in it the highest standard of conduct.
It is a long time ago that Parliament recognised the principle of compensation, irrespective of fault. It recognised it in the case of workmen's compensation. In another place, as long ago as the 1930s, a Bill received its Second Reading recognising this principle in connection with road accidents. It is only a matter of time before the principle is applied to road accidents by extensions of third party insurance, and indeed, senior judges have been recently advocating that it should be applied to road accidents, and that we should not be concerned with fault when considering the compensation of those injured. Until that is the law we have to be careful of what we write into the Code and not write into it a conduct of perfection; otherwise we may deprive victims of the compensation which they deserve.
Perhaps to this extent the Code is a memorial of our failure to ensure that law reform keeps pace with public opinion. This is certainly evident in other respects in the Code. What about level crossings? The public are horrified by the automatic half-barrier crossing. The Minister has a report about the dangers of these crossings. He cannot fail to do something about them eventually, and yet we have them on pages 32 and 33 of the Code, in glorious technicolour. Incidentally, there is no guidance, in the Code, for pedestrians at these crossings—not a word.
One cannot help feeling that pages 32 and 33 are something like a Round One success to the Ministry where, contrary to popular feeling, one knows there is a determination to go on with this type of crossing. There is a similar example of the perpetuation of bad law on page 9. Here there is a picture of an ice-cream van, with a child running across the road from the van. It comes under paragraph 41, which says, as a direction to motorists:
Be careful near a parked ice-cream van—children are more interested in ice cream than in traffic.
One would scarcely believe that from those two gentle lines one child a week is killed from this very cause; 10 children a week are seriously injured; and 20 children a week are slightly injured. More than half the casualties are children under 6 years of age, more than three quarters of the casualties are under 8. Yet we have just this gentle reminder in the Code. Even the reminder is watered down by a rather poor joke. There is nothing in the Code to tell the ice-cream vendor not to stop and sell ice cream unless he has a mate with him to control the traffic, and to see children safely across the road. This ought to be the law and if it is not, let us have it in the Code.
My third example of what I call unreformed law being perpetuated in the Code appears on page 20 in paragraph 91. It says:
Use dipped headlights at night in built-up areas unless street lighting is so good that they are not needed.
The Minister has the Report of his Working Party on Vehicle Lighting, issued in 1967, entitled "The use of headlamps "; it deals not only with headlamps, but with all vehicle lighting. The Report shows clearly the dangers of glare from dipped lamps in bad street lighting and the way that dipped lamps impair good street lighting. It also showed the great advantage of dimmed lights, but in the Code there is not a word about dimmed lights.
In the Report of the Ministry's Working Party, the Home Office, the police and the Road Research Laboratory all came out strongly in favour of dimmed lights. The A.A. and the R.A.C. favoured them. There is no mention of that in the Code, however, and, as far as I know,


despite the Report of his Working Party, the Minister has done nothing to encourage the installation or use of the dim-dip procedure.
Finally, I want to ask: Who is going to read the Code? The learner-drivers, perhaps, so that they shall pass their test, and right hon. and hon. Members of this House and a handful of other people who are interested in the contents of the Code. But will anyone pay 1s. 3d. to buy it? It is a very fine publication in many ways, and well got up, but it is not the sort of thing that people will buy off the bookstall to read on train journeys or take home to read in bed. Local authorities may buy it at the cost of the rates to distribute amongst schools, and so on.
I would like to have seen the Government be a little more generous about this and distribute the Code free. I know that there is the argument that it costs something to produce and that people treasure something more if they pay for it. The Code should be distributed free to and by the voluntary organisations—the Women's Institutes, the Townswomen's Guild and organisations of that sort—which are deeply interested in road safety and would like all road users to know its contents. I do not think that anyone would begrudge this as a public service at the taxpayer's expense. It is so important that all road users, not just people who are learning to drive a motor car or a motor cycle, should know the Code. It seems petty and wrong to make this charge for it.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wish to raise one short point which does not appear to have been raised earlier. I was not fortunate to hear the whole of the debate on the last occasion, but I have read HANSARD and I did not see any reference to Rule 140, dealing with the road user and animals, which states:
If you are herding animals along or across the road and there is someone with you, send him along the road to warn drivers at places such as bends and brows of hills where they may not be able to see. Carty lights after sunset.
That seems to me to be much too vague and not sufficiently explicit to meet a substantial problem.
I have a constituency interest in this rule. Most roads which are not motor

ways and highways and anyone is entitled to use them; he has a right to pass and repass, including people who are driving cattle. In Cornwall, however, we have only two major roads leading into the county, the A30 and the A38, neither of which is a motorway and both of which are used extensively by traffic throughout the year.
It is a mistake to suppose that Cornwall is only a holiday county and that the traffic is there only in the summer. It certainly doubles in the summer, but there is heavy use of these roads throughout the year for the carriage of agricultural produce, china clay and all sorts of industrial uses as well as passenger traffic. In Cornwall, there are many cattle, beef cattle in the north and dairy cattle more particularly in the south. It is inevitable that the cattle have to cross those two main highways, and there have been a number of complaints about difficulties which have arisen with the herding of cattle, particularly at night.
The rule does not give any specific instructions as to what sort of lights there should be, or how they should be carried, or whether they should be at the back or front of a herd. It says only that if one has somebody with one, he should warn other traffic. There have been quite a number of accidents, and complaints have come not only from motorists, who find the cattle a considerable danger, but also from farmers who have to use the roads.
The Minister has said that this Code will have to be revised frequently—every five years, I think he said. In view of some of the proposals which have been made not only tonight but on the previous occasion, I hope we may have revision in less than five years, and I suggest that we have another look at Rule 140 which does not go far enough and is not explicit enough.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Mr. Marsh.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order. Would you clarify the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I understand that because this is an adjourned debate hon. Members who spoke on the previous occasion are now excluded from speaking, although things have developed since then. May I have your Ruling on that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The Ruling is that as this is an adjourned debate those who have already participated in the debate have exhausted their right to speak.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Further to that point of order. Many of us cut our remarks short the last time because the Government allowed only two hours for the debate. This Motion raises great issues. May I ask you to reconsider your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the rules of the House and I gave a Ruling accordingly.

Mr. Webster: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to delay the Minister, but does that Ruling apply to the Minister who moved the Motion? He spoke twice. He had a right to reply. We are very glad the Minister is to speak even though it means Ministers speaking again, and I do not intend any discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, but does this Ruling mean that Members who curtailed their speeches and have heard all these Ministerial replies, which we hope will improve in due course, cannot speak?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister's speech is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Surely, hon. Members who have not yet participated in the debate will at last be able to do so?

11.7 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): I wonder whether I may intervene at this stage, because the last debate and the shape of this have taken an unusual course. It had been believed that it would be a very noncontroversial debate. The last debate showed that there were issues which disturbed hon. Members on both sides of the House very considerably indeed and I should like to refer to some of those.
In reply to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson), I certainly will look at the point he raised and will write to him separately.
The second half of the debate, if that is the right description of it, was opened by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr.

Graham Page) who has always played a very considerable part in this sort of matter. He raised a number of points and one was fundamental to the consideration of the Code. He raised it in particular on Rule 41 in relation to ice cream vans. In dealing with that I can reply to a number of queries which have been raised.
It is not the purpose of the Code to be a sort of backdoor legislation. It is not the purpose of the Code to direct owners of ice cream vans to do particular things—or to direct anybody to do anything. One has to get this clear, because if Parliament wishes to lay legal obligations upon people it is for Parliament to do that by legislation. What we are concerned with this evening is the Highway Code, which is based on the best advice which advisers can produce about how best to behave on our roads. The hon. Member for Crosby referred particularly to Rule 4. This was changed as a result of consultations. The original rule read:
When walking at night wear or carry something white.
This has been changed to read:
You can be more easily seen in the dark or in poor light if you wear or carry something white … ".
If one takes exception to this statement, I think that one is calling in question the necessity to have a Highway Code at all. I do not think that anyone can challenge the suggestion that one can be more easily seen in the dark or in poor light if one wears or carries something white.
The basis of the Code is a series of commonsense suggestions, in an effort to cut down what is an appalling carnage on the roads. We are talking of about 40,000 casualties a year, a figure which in any other context would horrify the House and the nation. That is why I say that hon. Members have to bear in mind that we are seeking as best we can to produce advice which is applicable to all road users, in an effort to get them all to conform to some extent to a system of rules which will enable the roads to be perhaps a little less unsafe than they would otherwise be.
This means that various groups have to play their part. There is reference to all of them, whether they be motorists, or people moving cattle, or cyclists, or


pedestrians. Advice is applicable to all of them in an effort to produce a situation in which rather less damage is caused to society on our roads than is the case at present.
I do not wish to intervene in the debate for long, because a number of other hon. Members wish to speak. However, a number of matters were raised during our first day's debate which it has been necessary to study. After all, there is no point in having Parliamentary debates unless somebody takes notice of what is said in them. That may be a rather novel approach, but I think it is rather a useful one.
Having listened to the debate on the last occasion, I want to make a number of comments. The hon. Member for Crosby bemoaned the fact that in the last two weeks nothing had happened. This is a Point to which I shall come in a moment, because one of the problems which we face here is the procedure which we have to follow in Parliament. I have no power to amend the Code.

Mr. Graham Page: The right hon. Gentleman has power to withdraw the Code and bring out another one.

Mr. Marsh: This is a possibility, but it is a course which, if we followed it, would lead to considerable delay. We could not withdraw the Code and change parts of it without reopening the whole of the consultative process which has led us to this particular stage, and that would take a very long period indeed.

Mr. Webster: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but does his remark apply to the signs at the back of the Code? They are not part of the general Code. In fact, I gather that they are the "sixpenny bonus" that we are getting. Do they come under the statutory limitation which applies to the rest of the Code?

Mr. Marsh: They do. It is the book holus-bolus. I think that hon. Members will agree that I am trying to meet the House as best I can.
Three main points worried the House during the first day's debate. First was a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Crosby and others who criticised strongly the procedure for discussing the Highway Code. A number

of hon. Members on both sides of the House complained that they were being afforded the opportunity of debating the Code, but were denied any possibility of amending anything contained in it. This point has been made again this evening.
I find it impossible to disagree with these complaints. It is an absurd situation that Parliament should debate a document but have no power to change any part of it. Nor has the Minister power to take into account the representations made by hon. Members. The present procedure has been in operation for nearly 40 years and, despite the criticisms which are made of the modern Parliament, this controversy shows that previous Parliaments on this issue were more passive than the present one.
The procedure which we have followed for the past 40 years is now unsatisfactory, and I am grateful to hon. Members for bringing this fact to light. It is the first time that I have brought the Highway Code before the House, and to me it seems an absurd situation. It is impossible for me to change the procedure in the middle of a debate, which is where we are at this moment. Consultations have been conducted with some 70 organisations and, whilst one or two organisations are still dissatisfied with one or two points of the Code, and this is inevitable, as a whole the Code is acceptable to the vast majority of those whom we have consulted.

Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend. It has been mentioned that my hon. Friend has apologised, and I have also a letter from the Parliamentary Secretary concerning consultation with cyclists. As there was no meeting with representatives of the cyclists, would my right hon. Friend reconsider meeting representatives of the cyclists for discussion of the points that they have raised?

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are about 70 organisations, most of whom have not had meetings. I have looked closely at the representations made by the Cycling Council, but I will come to that in a moment.
If I may pursue the point of the procedure for dealing with the Code, we will presumably have a Highway Code for a long time to come, though with a


bit of luck somebody else will be dealing with the future one; I am not sure which of my hon. Friends will be doing so, but I wish him well. We have had consultations with some 70-odd organisations. Virtually all those organisations accept the Code as it is, with one or two reservations. I think that the House would agree that it would be highly undesirable to postpone publication of the Code for what could be a considerable period of time, particularly since the existing Code is very much out-of-date.
One reason for the urgency in the publication of the new Code is that it is nine years since publication of the last one, with the result that the Code is out-of-date in a number of major respects. It would not be right to allow such a long period of time to elapse before the next publication. There will have to be revisions of the Code in the not too distant future to enable us to conform with international practices which are now being discussed.
Therefore, while accepting the criticisms of the procedure, for which I do not accept responsibility, I propose to bring a revised Code to the House within two years and, to enable the House to be consulted properly, I propose to circulate a draft Code as a Green Paper for consideration and discussion, which could be debated should the House so wish, and reconsidered by the Minister in the light of the debate.

Sir H. Harrison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I think that the House was wise not to let the Code go through without full debate and not to give the Government the Closure. The Minister was most encouraging. I congratulate him on what he said. I can understand that he has no power to alter the Code, and nor has Parliament. Will he consider consulting the Motor Schools Association, which teaches——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman spoke in the debate a fortnight ago. He must make only a brief intervention.

Sir H. Harrison: I congratulate the Minister on the work he has done during the last fortnight. I am sure that what he is now saying will meet with the general approval of the House.

Mr. Marsh: I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The wisdom of the House is always there, but it is not always apparent to Ministers at the immediate moment. It is always useful to consider what has been said in the House of Commons in the cold light of dawn——

Mr. Webster: Can the Minister tell us what the procedural changes will be, and what will be the date of the next Code?

Mr. Marsh: I cannot say what the date of the next Code will be—I hope within two years. In any case, the Code ought to be changed to conform with international practices now being drawn up.
I think that the way I suggest is the easiest way round, although I am open to suggestions if hon. Members care to make them. That way will be to make a draft in the form of a Green Paper, circulate it to the House at the same time as to other bodies—I see no reason why the House should not be consulted as well as anyone else—then to have a debate on the Green Paper, if that is wished, and then for the Minister to make changes in the Code if he thinks fit. I hope that hon. Members will feel that this would be a more satisfactory way of dealing with the matter than the present procedure, which seems to make a nonsense of Parliament.
The second point which caused some feeling, and featured in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) and Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), and other hon. Members was the way in which the correspondence from the Cycling Council of Great Britain to the Ministry and myself had been dealt with. Complaints like this are serious. This is a body of repute, representing a large number of people. Immediately after the debate I looked into the matter personally, and the council's complaint I felt to be fully justified. I telephoned the general secretary of the council the day after the debate. and apologised to him for the way in which the matter had been handled. Action on this issue has been taken within the Department, and I hope that the House will agree with me that we can now regard this matter as settled.
Rule 132 featured prominently in the previous debate, and caused some concern. I have looked very carefully at the points raised by hon. Members and by the Cycling Council both before and since our discussion on 18th November. They have objected to the proposed new paragraph on cyclists, which reads:
Ride in single file on busy or narrow roads.
As the House is aware, and as I said earlier, the Code is advisory; it is not law. It is not a breach of the law to disobey the Code. I think on safety grounds that that is an extremely foolish thing to do, but it is not a breach of the law. There are already penalties in the Road Traffic Acts for recklessly or carelessly driving cycles, as other vehicles, but the problem in this respect is very serious.
The number of cyclists is declining every year, but each year the cyclist is becoming more and more liable to be involved in a road accident. The casualty rate for cyclists in relation to cycling miles is rising every year, and the, percentage of serious or fatal cycling accidents is increasing at the moment. I will just quote some figures. In 1957, 21·4 per cent. of cycling casualties were either fatal or serious: in 1967, the corresponding figure was 24 per cent. In short, the cyclist is becoming, through no fault of his own, more and more prone to accident. And, of those cyclists involved in accidents, more are liable to be killed or seriously injured.
I would be the last person who would wish to place impediments in the way of sporting or recreational cycling—indeed, riding cycles has a great deal of precedent in my Ministry, which I do not intend to follow. It is, I am told, a cheap, healthy pastime which gives pleasure to tens of thousands of people, but. I do not think that the paragraph will raise the problems which some hon. Members fear. The advice in the present Code is to ride in single file should road or traffic conditions require it. A great deal of work has been done by the Road Research Laboratory in an effort to establish just how far the Code is really understood by people, and how much it confuses them. The evidence from the Road Research Laboratory is that the rather vague phrase "when traffic conditions permit" means very

little to many people. I hope that the House will agree that where the road safety position in relation to a group of road users is as I have demonstrated it is important that the advice we give should be clear.
I understand that cyclists generally do not quarrel with the stipulation that they should ride in single file on busy roads; what they are really concerned with is the reference to narrow roads, particularly in the country. But narrow roads also occur in towns. A wide road with double parking becomes a narrow road for the purposes of traffic. But there is also the problem of narrow roads in the country, which, because they bend and twist, can be extremely dangerous for cyclists because motorists cannot see them. They often have high hedges and sharp bends, and are, therefore, very hazardous. Cyclists may not always see or hear approaching traffic and, therefore, may not be able to get into single file in time to avoid being involved in an accident.
We have enough confidence in the cycling organisations to recognise that bona fide cycling clubs are properly run; they have their groups and they understand the problems and will themselves be able to follow a rule which is pure common-sense. It is not law; it is advice. We therefore think that this rule will not present them with the difficulties they fear. If that is not so, in the shortened period we would hope to have evidence, and we will be able to revise the Code if it is necessary.
But we have to strike a balance between the conflicting claims of road users and to bring into decision at the same time the need to preserve and enhance safety on the roads. It is not an easy decision to make, and I know how keenly cyclists feel about it; how they feel that we are making conditions on the road less comfortable and less pleasant for them. That is not the intention, and I do not think that it will be the result, but, as Minister of Transport, I cannot avoid the responsibility for doing what seems to be right in terms of giving advice to make things safer not only for cyclists but for other road users.
We have concluded that, on balance, the new rule was better because it was clearer. The phrase "when traffic conditions permit" does not mean very


much to many people, but if one suggests that this should be done when the roads are busy or narrow it is a clearer piece of advice, and we thought that that would help to reduce casualties. For those reasons, and for those reasons alone, we concluded that we would recommend Parliament to accept it.
I have spoken for rather longer than I intended, but this is one of those occasions when the debate has been valuable—at any rate, to me. I am sorry if it has kept a number of hon. Members up. In respect of discussions about the future Highway Code, we in the Ministry have learned a great deal from this debate. It will enable us to meet the problem better in future. I hope that the House will feel able to meet us.

Sir Ronald Russell: Some hon. Members and myself raised some points about horses in the last debate. Can the Minister deal with them now?

Mr. Marsh: A number of points were made about horses. They were rather conflicting points. We have had representations on this question. There are two views as to which side of the road horses should travel. I shall certainly write to the hon. Member about this point, and look into it.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: I am grateful to the Minister for having stated that he feels that the present procedure is unsatisfactory. I am also grateful for his having said that a revised Code will be brought forward within the next two years and I am, therefore, able to keep my remarks very short, in the hope that I shall have some helpful comments to make.
I assume that the section of the Code called "The Law's Demands" is not strictly a part of the Code and, therefore, can be altered. I believe that this section contains one inaccuracy. I refer to this passage on page 48:
When driving you must … stop when required to do so by a police officer".
The Section of the Road Traffic Act there referred to provides that a motorist must stop when required to do so
by a police constable in uniform".

I hope that the Minister will ensure that this part of the Code is altered, because some people may need cautioning that it would be wise not to stop if signalled to do so at night, in a country lane by a person who is not in uniform.
Rule 13 advises pedestrians as follows:
You have no priority at a zebra crossing until you have stepped on it, but, when you do, traffic must give way to you.
Unfortunately, we all know that it often does not. As pedestrians are notoriously bad at estimating the speed of approaching vehicles, it would have been better to have said something much more positive such as, "If you are not absolutely sure that an oncoming vehicle can stop, do not begin to cross".
Rule 61 says:
In one-way streets, choose the correct lane for your exit as soon as you can. Never change lanes suddenly.
One thing which is omitted here and which I think is of paramount importance is an injunction to drivers to signal before changing lanes.
Rule 95 is very important:
The flashing of headlamps has the same meaning as sounding your horn—to let another road user know you are there.
The Government are entitled to say, "Whatever lorry drivers may do, and whatever Lord Justice Russell may have said, we shall not say that flashing lights mean, 'Come forward. I am waiting for you'." If that is the Government's view—I think it is the correct view—they should say so in the clearest of terms, because some people on the roads use flashing lights as an indication to come forward. I wonder why those who drafted the Code did not say, "The flashing of lights must not be taken as an indication to come forward or to cut across another vehicle's path".

Mr. Marsh: Rule 95 says:
The flashing of headlamps has the same meaning as sounding your horn—to let another road user know you are there.
We have covered it elsewhere.

Mr. Waddington: I am referring to that very rule. In view of the difficulty which has arisen because so many lorry drivers have created their own code, and as the High Court has commented on the informal code used by lorry drivers, it might have been better to have used more positive wording.
I add my criticism to those which have been already voiced about the sign for the automatic half-barrier crossing depicted at page 38. The Minister said that this is part of the Code and cannot be changed. This sign is absurd and conveys nothing. It was strongly criticised at the Nixon inquiry, which recommended that a suitable alternative should be found. Nothing has been done. Now we are apparently stuck for the next two years with a sign which can mean nothing to a person of average intelligence.
This Code is two and a half times as expensive as the last effort. It is much longer, far too long. The verbosity of the author will, no doubt, go down in history, but I greatly doubt that its contents will sink into the heads of the average learned driver.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have had a long debate. I would hope that contributions now will be brief.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I shall be brief, especially because of the conciliatory and sophisticated attitude of the Minister tonight, which has been very helpful to us.
I nearly always look forward to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) being attributed to me in the newspapers, and the one he made tonight is the only one which I should not like to have so attributed.
I recommend to the right hon. Gentleman that the three-yearly fee for a driving licence should be raised from 15s to 15s. 6d. and that it be compulsory for the Highway Code to be purchased when the form is sent in or be taken with the licence. Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman will be almost condoning perjury, for the applicant has to sign that he has read the Code, and I doubt that many who so sign have, in fact, done so.
I have confirmation for the view that the new Code is over-long and verbose both from my son, who is to take his driving test at Christmas and who is glad that it will not be the one on which he will be interrogated by the examiners, and from a slightly more informed

source, namely, the Motor Schools Association of Great Britain, which, I understand, was not officially consulted about the Code, which I think a pity.
I take up two points which the Association makes in its letter and which may have to be covered in the Press hand-out or covering letter from the Minister. The first touches the use of the words, "single carriageway", "dual carriageway" and "double carriageway". The association regards the expression "single carriageway" as extremely misleading. There are either dual-carriageway roads, with a barrier or space between the carriageways, or there are double carriageways. The association goes on to point out that in paragraph 68 of the new Code there is a reference to "an ordinary two-lane road".
The second point arises on Rule 74 and is more important. The rule implies that, if one is the second driver wishing to turn right, the leading driver being prevented from turning only by on-coming traffic, the second driver should not enter the box junction. I think that it is the normal practice in London, when traffic has to turn to the right, that a queue of traffic, so to speak, is allowed into the box. I cannot see the point of allowing only one car into the box. The Motor Schools Association regards this as a matter which should have greater explanation if there is not to be ambiguity and doubt in the minds of driving testers at the time when testing under the new Code takes place.
Now, a personal point on Rule 46. There is a picture of the amber flashing signal, but the picture does not show the white cross at the bottom or the red light at the top. There are a good many motorists in London who still do not know whether they are or are not allowed to go ahead when faced with that rather art nouveau type of flashing signal.
Finally, a compliment to the authors of the Code from the Motor Schools Association. The association is
especially happy that the classic phrase, 'certain vehicles carrying slow-moving loads', is not repeated.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I shall be very brief, as I want


to raise only one matter to which the Minister did not refer.
I, too, applaud his statement that the Green Paper procedure will be used in two years' time. I hope that that will include a debate in the House on the Green Paper, and that the Leader of the House will take note of this, because it has been part of the procedure so far in the introduction of this new kind of Paper.
I wish to refer to the automatic half-barrier level crossing, dealt with in Rules 147 to 150. It is not clear whether the section has been written in the light of the Hixon Tribunal's Report, which has brought to the country's attention some of the significant matters connected with these crossings. The advice given in this Highway Code needs to be supplemented by publicity on a national scale if safety at such crossings is to be ensured in the future. They will be made safer if there is a longer time for the flashing lights and for the barriers to fall before the train arrives.
Education on a country-wide basis is needed for motorists and others to learn what they are supposed to do, which is fairly complicated, even in this Code, particularly if they have vehicles moving at 5 m.p.h. or less, or long and unwieldy vehicles as described in the Code.
One of my hon. Friends referred to the sign, so I shall say only that I entirely agree that it is not easily recognisable. It has been described by one of my hon. Friends as the "flying tin-tacks", and it certainly needs to be changed in due course to something which is immediately obvious to a motorist, because these crossings are not frequent enough for people to get used to the signs. We need something which will immediately make it clear to the motorist what he will be confronted with.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Paper entitled the Highway Code, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th October, and approves the revised Highway Code contained in pages 4 to 44 thereof.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (THE GURKHAS)

11.43 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

11.43 p.m.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: I am grateful for the opportunity in a short debate to raise the question of the future rundown of the Gurkhas, and I am glad to see the Minister of Defence for Administration in his place.
I understand that the present plans are that the Gurkhas should be run down from 14,000, their strength in October, 1967, to 10,000 by 1st April, 1969, and to 6,000 by 1970–71, a run-down of 2,000 a year. I ask the Government to reconsider this run-down.
I understand that the Minister is shortly to visit Nepal and Singapore. I have just come back from an all-party tour of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore, admirably arranged by the Ministry of Defence. I followed this with a brief personal tour of Australia to discuss defence matters. In each of these four areas I was very struck, as were my colleagues, by the reputation and effectiveness of the Gurkhas.
Since 1946, British troops have been engaged in operations on 66 different occasions. Some of these have been serious and others have, perhaps, been trivial. But on most occasions the infantry has been the important element of any force. It is shortage of troops on the ground that we shall suffer in the years ahead. Whether they are fighting communism or nationalism with a communist element, it is the subversive tactics which generally spreads turmoil, causes us anxiety and creates the need to defend our interests and alliances. The Gurkhas are absolutely unique in their ability to counter subversive tactics.
It seems, therefore, that when we are finding it difficult to recruit the numbers of people that we want for our own Army and when the cost effectiveness of these Gurkha troops is so outstanding, it is time to reconsider whether we are right to throw away the great assets which the, Gurkha troops provide to this country and its alliances.
The Minister of Defence himself has said in answer to a Parliamentary Question that the cost of the Gurkhas is about half the cost of a similar British battalion. We were told on our tour that it was about one third of the cost. The Government have always claimed that they are dedicated to cost effectiveness. If they are really to be loyal to this principle, here is an element which is far less costly— it is about half or a third of the cost—and is as effective as, and in certain cases more effective than, the equivalent British troops.
I hope that when the Minister of Defence goes to Singapore he will take the message and perhaps reconsider whether a policy which may have been right a little while ago is right today. He is going to Singapore to give away, as I understand from a Treasury Minute laid before the House, the Singapore dockyard, estimated to be worth £16·1 million. In addition, the Government have offered Singapore £50 million of defence aid during the next five years. These two alone—and there is more to come—total about £66 million to be given away to Singapore.
In answer to another Parliamentary Question the Minister has said that a British battalion costs about £1·4 million a year. On the basis that I have outlined, a battalion of Gurkhas would cost between £0·5 million and £0·7 million a year. On this basis, therefore, the £66 million which he is to give in aid to Singapore next week and in the next five years would pay for one extra Gurkha battalion for another 100 years. I wonder whether it is a sensible judgment to give away these vast sums of money at a time when we say we are short of foreign exchange, and to run down some of the most effective, loyal, dedicated and well trained troops that this country has ever seen.
The argument has been put forward that the Gurkhas are of limited use, that there are certain areas in the world where they cannot be used. Here I turn to what was said by the present Minister of Defence in 1963 in a debate in the House. Addressing Mr. Thorneycroft, the then Minister of Defence, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Gurkha troops have proved themselves ex-

ceptionally suitable for the rôle which British forces have to perform in the Far East …?
In his reply Mr. Thorneycroft said:
… and I emphasise that the role of the Gurkhas is world-wide."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 369.]
While I was out there I talked to the Gurkhas who had served in Salisbury Plain in some inclement weather. They had enjoyed it. I was surprised, but they said that in every way they greatly enjoyed serving in this country. I think that we should be wrong to suppose that they can serve only in tropical climates. After all, Nepal is high, cold and snowbound for many months of the year. The Gurkhas are born in high territory, of rugged disposition, and can serve with great distinction in tropical forests as well. It is a versatility we should not lightly throw away, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider seriously whether this is the moment to do so.
It is argued, also, that, in 1947, we made an agreement that the Gurkhas should not be used against people of similar religion, that is Hindu. But, again, I wonder whether this is appropriate today. India has recruited no fewer than 80,000 Gurkha troops. I believe that she has over 53 battalions of them—almost as many battalions of them as the British Army has as a whole. India used them in the Congo operations, where they were extremely effective and won praise on all sides. She has used them in Kashmir. I wonder whether the argument that they cannot be used in other territories is as valid as the Government argue.
In every place they have been used, the Gurkhas have gained a great reputation. I had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Minister of Defence of Australia and with other defence officials. One of the clear messages I brought back was, "Why are you giving away this great asset at a time when you are desperately in need of cost-effective troops?"
The popularity of the Gurkhas wherever they have served is outstanding. Those of us who have visited them have noted their dedication, their loyalty to this country, their intense discipline. In face of all these facts, I ask the right hon. Gentleman, because I know that, in his heart, he is on the side of those who wish to see not only this country but our


alliances defended, to consider, when he goes to Nepal and the Far East to keep an open mind, to keep the options open, and not to throw away the most loyal and effective troops ever to serve our country.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. John Peel: There is one aspect of this deplorable reduction of the Gurkha force which worries me a great deal. This is the effect on a vital part of South-East Asia, the State of Brunei.
Brunei, with which we have been in treaty relationship for a long time, with which we have had extremely close and friendly relations and which is still an extremely valuable part of the world to Britain and to the West, is, at the moment, covered by our defence arrangements and particularly by a Gurkha battalion for which it pays all the expenses. Not a penny burden falls upon the British taxpayer.
What worries me, in the depressing scuttle by the Government out of South-East Asia in 1971, is what will happen to the defence of Brunei. It is willing to pay for its defence with the help of the Gurkhas, who have proved admirable troops for that part of the world, which is jungle terrain. Yet I understand that, with the cutting down of the Gurkha force this is unlikely to be possible. What Brunei wants is a little help from Britain to enable her to keep these wonderful troops, for which she herself will pay.
I hope that, if not tonight then some time, the Government will be able to reassure us that we are not neglecting our vital interests here and the vital interests of a very loyal and valuable friend to Britain.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: I, too, am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) for raising this subject tonight. On 13th November, I put a Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many infantry battalions were below establishment. The reply was 43 out of 59. I went on to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not think it lunacy to run down the Gurkha battalions which there was

competition to join, far from there being any difficulty about recruiting. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that there is great competition to join Gurkha battalions serving with the British Army.
I saw the Gurkhas in action. I had the great privilege and honour of serving alongside the 43rd Gurkha Brigade in Italy, on the Coriano Ridge. We were fighting in tanks at the time and every evening when we went into laager for replenishment and maintenance we were shelled by some very unpleasant weapons Called Nebelwefer, German multi-barrelled mortars. These things used to land on us and cause many casualties and they made maintenance virtually impossible.
This went on for several days until a platoon of the Gurkhas was sent up the ridge—silently—and the shelling stopped. In other words, the O.P., which was bringing this gunfire down upon us, was stopped. I shall never forget that and I can never be more grateful to soldiers than to that platoon of the 43rd Gurkha Brigade in Italy in 1944.
The years went on and I saw the Gurkhas in an entirely different rôle, a peacekeeping rôle. Last September, I saw, I think it was, the 51st Brigade, on the borders between Hong Kong, the New Territories, and China. There I saw these first-class disciplined troops doing a magnificent job. Anybody who has any knowledge of this sort of peacekeeping border job will realise how well disciplined these troops have to be. If someone has a bullet up the spout and eases the spring by mistake and there is a bang, a major incident can occur. But one never felt that that sort of incident was likely while these Gurkha troops were there. They are absolutely first-class; they are loyal and they are reasonably priced. We were told that they cost about a third of the cost of an ordinary infantry battalion.
I beseech the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the views which we are putting forward. Here we have first-class troops who are loyal to this country and cheap to maintain and who have proved themselves to be brilliant in war and, more than that, steady in peacekeeping. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider any rundown of this magnificent outfit, the Gurkhas.

12 m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I am glad that we are to have this short debate. Far from disagreeing with what has been said, I want to say that I agree with all that has been said about the loyalty, good-humour and bravery of the Gurkha battalions which have formed an integral part of the British Army since India became independent, and which have served the Crown for over 150 years, since the Nepal war of 1815. It is sometimes forgotten that during the First World War there were 200,000 of them, with 20,000 casualties, and in the Second World War there were 175,000, with 23,655 casualties.
Since the end of the Second World War they have seen action in a large area of the Far East, particularly during the Malayan emergency and more recently in confrontation, when they added to the 13 V.C.s which the units have won over the years of loyal service to the Crown. Most of the Gurkha soldiers are long-service soldiers and hope to serve until they have completed at least 15 years' service in order to earn a pension.
On 14th March, 1963, about the time of the debate in which, as hon. Gentlemen have commented, I made a remark, at that time it was announced by the then Secretary of State for War, Mr. Profumo, that the then Government intended to reduce the Gurkha Brigade from 14,600 to 10,000 over a period of three years. This, as we know, was postponed because of confrontation, and the Gurkha battalions, together with battalions from the U.K. successfully concluded that operation over a period of about two and a half to three years. When confrontation came to an end, we had to look at the position. The announcement of the rundown to 10,000 had already been made by the previous Conservative Administration.
I visited Nepal in December, 1966 and informed His Majesty's Government of the intentions of the Government to carry out the plan announced by the previous Administration. We arrange for the men to be returned to Nepal at an average rate of about 2,000 a year. I again visited Nepal in December, 1967, and in January, 1968, the Prime Minister announced in the House that we intended

to continue the rundown at the rate of 2,000 a year, until a figure for the brigade of 6,000 was reached, by the end of 1971.
One of the reasons we fixed the rate at 2,000 a year was that we felt that this was about the number that would be convenient for the economy of Nepal to reintegrate. More important, it was because it was the maximum number we could give anything like a proper period of rehabilitation and training before they returned to the villages after their period of service with the Crown. I hope tomorrow week to be in Nepal again. I must, having recounted what happened after my previous visits, make it perfectly clear, and this perhaps answers the main point of the debate, that I do not go to Nepal on this occasion with any proposals whatsoever to change the present rundown plans.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Will the Minister please take the advice of my hon. Friend to keep an open mind? If he is not to change the Government's plans, will he give the people of Nepal a message, from this side of the House, that when we have the opportunity we will restore that position?

Mr. Reynolds: I repeat, I am not going to Nepal on this occasion with any proposals for changing the rundown plans announced, to 6,000 by the end of 1971. I shall be visiting the Gurkha transit camp at Barrackpore, not in a particularly good condition, and the Eastern Gurkha depot at Dharan to see how the resettlement courses are proceeding, and then I shall visit Katmandu, to renew contacts with Nepalese Ministers.
Comparative costs of Gurkha battalions as compared with United Kingdom recruited battalions have been quoted. The figures given are only half the story. Gurkha soldiers in the Far East cost, man for man, about one-third as much as United Kingdom soldiers. That is just the cost of the men. One has to look a bit further than that. A Gurkha battalion has considerably more men than a British battalion. Man for man it is about one-third, but there are considerably more men. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman will perhaps learn a little more about this subject as he spends longer on that Front Bench dealing with defence.
There are more men because it is not possible for a Gurkha man to go home on a fortnight's leave. He has to have a period of many months off in order to go home on leave. Therefore, there have to be considerably more men in the battalion to ensure there are the same number of riflemen as there are in a United Kingdom battalion at any one time.

Mr. Dance: Would he not agree that that may be so, but that when the time comes, when they have to go into action, those people can be recalled and they will have a really up-to-strength battalion, which, goodness knows, we have not got now?

Mr. Reynolds: The battalions are up to strength. Roughly one-quarter of the men are on leave at any one time. That is why there are more men in a Gurkha battalion than in a United Kingdom battalion.
We have to have a separate training organisation for them, which duplicates facilities that are available in the United Kingdom, but we will certainly not bring them all the way to the United Kingdom and then back to Hong Kong. In 1971, when we will have 6,000 men, that training organisation will cost £1·3 million a year. The hon. Member quoted a figure of £1·4 million as the cost for a British battalion. That is the cost in pay, etc., but many other things come into the true cost of a battalion.
While we have Gurkha battalions, we need a Gurkha training organisation, which costs £1·3 million a year. A Gurkha battalion fulfilling a similar role has exactly the same costs as a United Kingdom battalion for officers and equipment. With Gurkha troops, the head of that organisation and most of the supporting arms and services are largely United Kingdom-manned.
The figures which I have been able to work out, as accurately as possible, show that in 1971, when we plan to have 6,000 Gurkhas serving in Hong Kong, the cost will be about 61 per cent. of the cost of an equivalent United Kingdom unit stationed in Hong Kong, or nearly two-thirds when looked at overall. If they were stationed in the United Kingdom, my information, which has been fairly carefully worked out, shows that a

Gurkha battalion would cost slightly more than for a United Kingdom-recruited battalion stationed in this country. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) shakes his head, but he has asked for figures and I am giving them. Whatever pledges his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) makes, he cannot give a pledge to alter those figures, because they are the costs.
I have no intention tonight of getting into an argument as between the effectiveness of individual Gurkha or other battalions in the British Army recruited in the United Kingdom. I made my comments on the matter—the right hon. and learned Member has quoted them—in the debate in 1962/63, and I see no reason to change them. We must, however, face the fact that the announcement then made was that we required a total of 190,000 soldiers in the Army, including 10.000 Gurkhas, to meet our then commitments. By 1971, the commitments will have been considerably reduced. We shall be out of Singapore, we are out of Aden and we shall be out of the Gulf. Commitments have been reduced and we are planning a total of 158,000 men, including 6,000 Gurkhas. United Kingdom-recruited battalions are, therefore, also being cut as well as the Gurkha infantry battalions.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: That presupposes that we can recruit that number, but 43 of our 59 battalions are under strength and we are not able to recruit the numbers of men we desire to recruit. The Minister is assuming that we shall be able to recruit them. If we cannot recruit in this country, surely we should stop the run-down of the Gurkhas, since this has happened since the recent decision was taken to reduce to 6,000.

Mr. Reynolds: I accept that recruiting in this country is not satisfactory. Thinking back, however, the hon. Member will realise that battalions in the United Kingdom were considerably more under strength in 1963, when the original announcement was made. There is no doubt about that.
As regards use, I can only quote what was said in the previous debate, when the then Secretary of State pointed out that there might be circumstances when the use of Gurkhas could be restricted or their recruitment terminated. There are


parts of the world where, for social or religious reasons, we would wish to use United Kingdom rather than Gurkha-recruited troops in certain circumstances.
The hon. Member raised the question of the use of Gurkhas by other countries arid he mentioned Brunei. We were, of course, planning to withdraw the first battalion of the Second Gurkha Rifles from Brunei this year, but it has been decided that they will stay there until further notice. We are, of course, coming out of the Far East generally, as already announced, by the end of 1971. The question of other countries making use of Gurkha troops when we have left an area is not one I can comment on. It is a matter which will have to be dealt with directly by the Government of that country and His Majesty the King of Nepal's Government.
We recruit Gurkha soldiers into the British Army. If anyone else wants to recruit Gurkhas, for any purpose whatever, military or police purposes, that is not a matter with which Her Majesty's Government here are concerned.

Mr. Peel: I understand that the trouble, at the moment at any rate, is that it is not possible for Brunei, even later on in 1971, to negotiate directly with Nepal for these troops. It would have to be done with the assistance of Britain.

Mr. Reynolds: I am not responsible for what negotiations the Government of Brunei may or may not have with the Government of Nepal. It is not something for which I can answer. I am only saying that, if any country wants Gurkha soldiers, that is not a matter for which Ministers in this House are responsible. That is something they would have to discuss themselves.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: We have an obligation to Brunei. We cannot just tear it up. We have done that sort of thing already in Aden. We are doing it in the Persian Gulf and threatening to do with Malaysia. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to stand by his word and the word of the Government, and, on behalf of the Government, to recognise, on this occa-

sion, that we have a defence obligation to Brunei. Brunei is asking us to help so that Gurkhas can continue to serve in that part of the world. Would not the right hon. Gentleman help carry out our word and obligation in this sphere?

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are discussions going on at present in and around South-East Asia between Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and ourselves to decide what the position will be when we have withdrawn our military forces from that area. These negotiations have been going on, and will continue to go on for some time.
There is only one final point on which I must comment. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon, North said that I was going to Singapore to begin to hand over something like £66 million worth of assets. I think that that was the figure he mentioned. I have not checked it. I will accept it, giving £ 1 million either way. He said that this was taxpayers' money and that it could be used for other purposes.
Of course, money can always be used for some other purpose if one is prepared to sacrifice what it is at the moment being spent on. But the dockyard I shall be handing over is not money: it is a fixed asset which cannot be moved. If the hon. Gentleman is to start criticising the amount of assets we have left behind, then I would say that £66 million is not anything like the worth of the stores and munitions that we left in Suez, when we pulled out of there.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: In this instance, they want us to stay. This did not apply to other places from which we have pulled out since the end of the war. In Malaysia, Singapore—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.